Karnataka High Court
Sri. Suresh vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1482
CRL.P No. 201783 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201783 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SURESH
S/O GURULINGAPPA WALI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
M/S. MAHAJAN FERTILIZERS,
MAHAJAN COMPLEX, ALMEL,
TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: VIJAYPUR-586 202
2. SRI. ANAND KALYANI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
KISSAN AGRO INDUSTRIES,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580 030
Digitally signed by ...PETITIONERS
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI (BY SRI. SHARANABASAVESHWAR MAMADAPUR., ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
REP. BY THE FERTILIZER INSPECTOR
AND AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE RAITHA SAMPARKA KENDRA,
ALMEL, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: VIJAYPUR,
REP. BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1482
CRL.P No. 201783 of 2025
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALABURAGI
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.
(OLD), U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH/SET
ASIDE THE ORDER 08-11-2022 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SINDAGI IN CC
NO.1517/2022.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.1517/2022 (arising out of PCR No.42/2022) filed by the respondent against the petitioners, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Sindagi, for the offences punishable under Section 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'E.C. Act').
2. The abridged facts of the case are, the complainant/respondent serving as a Agricultural Officer at -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1482 CRL.P No. 201783 of 2025 HC-KAR Raitha Samparka Kendra, Almel and also appointed as Inspector of Fertilizer vide Notification No.AGD 134 AMS 2016. It is stated in the complaint that, he had inspected the premises of M/s Mahajan Fertilizers, Mahajan Complex, Almel, Tq. Sindagi on 21.12.2019 and examined the fertilizer by taking samples out of 98 bags. The same was manufactured by M/s Kissan Agro Industries, Hubballi. After obtaining samples, the same was sent to Fertilizer Control Laboratory at Belagavi, for chemical analysis. Thereafter, the Laboratory issued report stating that the fertilizer is sub-standard. As such, the respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioners, however, petitioner No.2/accused No.2 submitted his written reply. Being not satisfied with the reply notice, the respondent filed a private complaint before learned JMFC, Sindagi, since the petitioners have violated Clause 19(b) of the Fertilizer Control Order (FCO), 1985 and committed offences under Sections 3 and 7 of the E.C.Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1482 CRL.P No. 201783 of 2025 HC-KAR the accused/petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Heard learned the counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
4. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences mechanically without applying judicious mind. According to him, the company should have been made accused along with the petitioners, failing to array the company as a party, vitiates the proceedings. He also contended that the petitioners cannot be vicariously liable for the act committed by the company. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per Contra, learned HCGP contended that the petitioners are the authorized persons of the company, as such, there is no necessity of arraying the company as a party. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. -5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1482 CRL.P No. 201783 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the documents made available on record.
7. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.200254/2023 dated 24.03.2023 in the similar facts and circumstance of this case held in Para Nos.5 and 6 as under:
"05. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the documents, it is necessary to refer Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which reads thus;-
"10. Offences by companies.―(1) If the person contravening an order made under section 3 is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1482 CRL.P No. 201783 of 2025 HC-KAR knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.― For the purposes of this section,― (a) "company" means any body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
(b) "director" in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.
1[10A. Offences to be cognizable.― Notwithstanding anything contained in 2[the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)] every offence punishable under this Act shall be "cognizable 3***].
4[10B. Power of court to publish name, place of business, etc., of companies convicted under the Act.―(1) Where any company is convicted under this Act, it shall be competent for the court convicting the company to cause the name and place of business of the company, nature of the contravention, the fact that the company has been so convicted and -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1482 CRL.P No. 201783 of 2025 HC-KAR such other particulars as the court may consider to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, to be published at the expense of the company in such newspapers or in such other manner as the court may direct.
(2) No publication under sub-
section (1) shall be made until the period for preferring an appeal against the orders of the court has expired without any appeal having been preferred, or such an appeal, having been preferred, has been disposed of.
(3) The expenses of any publication under subsection (1) shall be recoverable from the company as if it were a fine imposed by the court. Explanation.― For the purposes of this section, "company" has the meaning assigned to it in clause (a) of the Explanation of section 10.] 10C. Presumption of culpable mental state.―(1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
Explanation.― In this section, "culpable mental state" includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1482 CRL.P No. 201783 of 2025 HC-KAR (2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.]
06. On careful reading of the above said provision, it makes clear that if any offence committed by the company, the company should be made as party to the proceedings. Unless, the company is made as a party to the proceedings, the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the other accused persons, would not be proper."
8. In the instant case, admittedly the company has not arrayed as a party to the proceedings. Accused Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the petitioners are arrayed as accused on their individual capacity, without mentioning their designation/capacity in the company. As such, they cannot be prosecuted for the act committed by the company on vicarious liability, which is alien to the criminal law.
9. In such circumstance, I am of the considered view that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 is abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: -9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1482 CRL.P No. 201783 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.1517/2022 (arising out of PCR No.42/2022) filed by the respondent against the petitioners, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Sindagi, for the offences punishable under Section 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30 CT-BH