Karnataka High Court
M/S V D Pattanashetti Fertilizer And ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:894
CRL.P No. 102241 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102241 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
M/S V D PATTANASHETTI
FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE DEALER
MANIK ROAD, NIPPANI
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN
BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SHRI GANESH VEERABHADRAPPA PATTANASHETTI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT. NIPPANI,
AT. NIPPANI- 591237,
VISHAL TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
NINGAPPA ...PETITIONER
PATTIHAL (BY SRI. ASHOK R. KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Bench
Date: 2025.01.29 (BY INSPECTOR OF FERTILIZER,
10:52:17 +0530
OFFICE AGRI OFFICER, NIPANI),
BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERALS OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING PREMISES,
DHARWAD -580011.
2. SHRI. YOGESH F. ANGADI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:894
CRL.P No. 102241 of 2023
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
AND INSPECTOR OF FERTILIZER
OFFICE OF AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
RAITHA SAMPARK KENDRA,
NIPANI 591237
TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
R/BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING THE
PRIVATE COMPLAINT FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER CLAUSE 19 OF THE
FERTILIZER CONTROL ORDER 1985, SECTIONS 3 AND 7 OF THE
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1955 AS WELL AS ORDER DATED
19.02.2018 ISSUING PROCESS THEREON IN CC NO. 413/2018 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NIPANI AS
AGAINST HIM THIS PETITIONER) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri.Ashok R. Kalyanashetty submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.101435/2018 disposed on 22nd February 2021.
-3-NC: 2025:KHC-D:894 CRL.P No. 102241 of 2023
2. The learned AGA Sri. Sharad V. Magadum would not dispute the position of law as laid down by the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid judgment.
3. In that light, this petition deserves to succeed. The submission is in unison. The Coordinate Bench has held as follows:
"The petitioner who is accused No.1 is praying for quashing of all further proceedings in C.C.No.413/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Nippani, for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the Deputy General Manager of Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited and he is accused No.1 in C.C.No.413/2018. It is further alleged that a private complaint was lodged by the competent authority against one Ganesh Veerbhadrappa Pattanshetti who is now accused No.2. The allegation in the private complaint is that, when a sample of the fertilizer (DAP) collected from the premises of accused No.2 was sent to analyst for examination, the report was given by the expert that it was sub-standard and thereby accused had committed the offences punishable under clause 19 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The present petitioner is the Deputy General Manager of Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited which had manufactured -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:894 CRL.P No. 102241 of 2023 the said fertilizer. By an order dated 20.03.2018, learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nippani, has issued summons to the present petitioner also and the said order reads as follows:
"20.03.2013 present. Complainant called out present.
Summons to accused No.1 and 2, accused No.2 served, Called out. Absent. Smt. NBC and BNC advocate filed vakalat. Accused No.2 and application under Sec. 205 of Cr.P.C. Application is allowed.
Reissue summons to accused No.1 returnable by 08.06.2018.
Sd/- 20/3 C/c. Prl.C.J. & JMFC Nippani"
3. The grounds urged in the petition is that as per clause 24 of the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985, there is a requirement for appointment of a Compliance Officer for appearance before the Court whenever there is any violation of the provisions of the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985. It is stated that, accordingly the company of the petitioner had appointed one Sri. Mahesh Sadanand Naik as the Compliance Officer with effect from 01.10.2012 and the company of the petitioner had sent intimation to the Commissioner for Agriculture, Bangalore, in compliance with the requirement of clause 24 of the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985. A copy of the said certificate dated 1st October, 2012, is also produced at page 18 of the petition papers. It is therefore urged in the petition that when the petitioner's company has -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:894 CRL.P No. 102241 of 2023 complied with the requirement of clause 24 of the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985 and has appointed a Compliance Officer, the petitioner who is the Deputy General Manager of the Company which is the manufacturer of the fertilizer could not have been prosecuted and therefore the Court below was in error in issuing summons to him. The petitioner has also produced a copy of the order of this Court dated 18.07.2012 in Crl.R.P.No.10573/2012.
4. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader in this case.
5. There is no dispute about the fact that the sample of the fertilizer collected from the shop of accused No.2 Ganesh Veerbhadrappa Pattanshetti by the competent officer was manufactured by Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited of which the present petitioner was the Deputy General Manager at the material time. He is arraigned as accused No.1 in the case. The offence alleged against the present petitioner and accused No.2 are under clause 19 of the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per clause 24 of the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985, only the Compliance Officer appointed by the manufacturer industry is responsible to appear before the Court whenever violation of any of the provisions of the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985 is alleged. The order appointing one Sri. Mahesh Sadanand Naik as the Compliance Officer for the petitioner's company has also been produced before the -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:894 CRL.P No. 102241 of 2023 Court and it is specifically stated in the petition that such appointment of Sri. Mahesh Sadanand Naik has also been duly informed to the Commissioner for Agriculture, Bangalore. The only question that arises for consideration is, in view of clause 24 of the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985 and also in view of the appointment by the petitioner's company of Sri. Mahesh Sadanand Naik as the Compliance Officer, could the petitioner also be prosecuted as an accused for the offence alleged in the private complaint ?
6. A similar question arose for consideration co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.10573/2012 referred to supra and it is held as follows:
"4. It is to be noticed that the elaborate procedure for appointing a Compliance Officer for purposes of Fertiliser Control Order by the Industry, is to ensure that the responsible officer is made answerable for such emissions and commissions in respect of the particular legislation and it is also to avoid other officers, who may not be concerned with the particular area of work, being arraigned as accused and being made to go through a trial for the alleged offence. Therefore, it would have been proper for the court below to have addressed this primary circumstance, which the complainant ought to have been aware of and ought have το taken appropriate measures in the first instance to ensure that proceedings were initiated against the Compliance Officer and not any officer of the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:894 CRL.P No. 102241 of 2023 company and certainly not the Managing Director of the Company, who may be far removed from the day to day activities of quality control and other measures, which would be the responsibility of lesser officials. This would certainly result in an abuse of process of the court. Notwithstanding that there was a Compliance Officer, when it would be well within the knowledge of the complainant that the Managing Director of the Company has been arraigned as the accused. Therefore, it is a fit case which warrants interference by this court, as it is rightly pointed out that the Court of the Magistrate having taken cognizance, it may not be possible for the court below to recall that order and to take appropriate steps. It would be in the fitness of things if the proceedings are quashed, while observing that the complainant is at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the appropriate Compliance Officer, duly named by the company in question and to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
With that observation, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings as against the present petitioner before the court below stand quashed."
7. In the present case also, the Compliance Officer has been appointed by the petitioner's company and such appointment has been duly informed in terms of clause 24 of the Fertiliser Control Order to the Commissioner for Agriculture, Bangalore. In such -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:894 CRL.P No. 102241 of 2023 circumstances, in view of the law laid down in the above decision, learned Magistrate could not have issued summons to the present petitioner as an accused in the case. Accordingly, the said summons issued to the petitioner is illegal and without the sanction of law and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following:
The above petition is allowed. Summons issued insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, is quashed. Liberty is reserved to the complainant to initiate fresh proceedings against the Compliance Officer duly named by the company in question and to take appropriate steps in accordance with law."
4. In the light of the aforesaid submission, which is in unison, the petition deserves to succeed and the impugned crime to be quashed.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.413/2018, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nipani, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 120