Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs The State Of Karnataka, on 18 July, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.10573/2012
BETWEEN:
1. The Managing Director
Zuari Industries Limited,
Jaikisan Bhuvan,
Zuari Nagar - GOA. ..PETITIONER
(BY Shri M.J.Peerjade, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
represented by
The Fertilizer Inspector/Agriculture Officer,
2
Raita Sampark Kendra,
Koujalagi, Taluk Gokak,
District Belgaum
represented by the
State Public Prosecutor,
Circuit Bench, Dharwad. ..RESPONDENT
(by Shri P.H.Gotkhindi, Government Pleader)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking that the complaint in
CC No.682/2010 filed before the Prl.JMFC Court, Gokak against the
petitionerfor the offences punishable under Section 91(A) and (B) of
the Fertilizer Control Order read with Section 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act be quashed.
This petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court
made the following :-
ORDER
The petition coming on for admission is considered for final disposal in order to ensure that appropriate action is taken against the concerned.
3
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the Managing Director of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, who is arraigned as accused no.2 in proceedings initiated for an offence punishable under Section 19(a) and 19(b) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 (Hereinafter referred to as the ' 1985 Order', for brevity) read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Hereinafter referred to as the ' EC Act', for brevity) .
It is the complaint of the Fertilizer Inspector that during his routine inspection, he had drawn a sample from the DAP (18:46:0:NPK) fertilizer manufactured and supplied by the petitioner's
- company from the retail outlet of accused no.1, who is a dealer. The sample drawn was sent for analysis and that one portion of the sample was sent to the Deputy Director of Fertilizer Control Laboratory, Dharwad on 24.11.2008. The sample was found to be of sub- standard quality as per the report of the Government Analyst, dated 18.12.2008. A copy of the analysis report along with the notice was issued to accused no.1, calling upon him to submit his explanation. 4 Similarly, a notice had also been sent to the present petitioner. It was the allegation that the petitioner as well as accused no.1 had committed offences under the 1985 Order and the EC Act.
Accordingly, a private complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who has taken congnizance and issued process. The petitioner had entered appearance and is enlarged on bail. However, he is before this court on a primary ground that the very complaint preferred against the petitioner was not in accordance with law. He would submit that in terms of a communication received from the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, dated 1.8.1997, addressed to the Secretary, Department of Agriculture of all States, including the State of Karnataka, there was a requirement of appointment of an officer for compliance of the Fertilizer Control Order by the fertilizer industry in general, which was also applicable insofar as the petitioner's company was concerned. In accordance with the directions issued by the Department of Agriculture, the company has appointed one Shri Rajendra V Kossambe as the 5 Compliance Officer for compliance with the Fertilizer (Control) Order, as required under Clause 24 of the 1985 Order. He is the concerned who represents the organisation in the event of any legal matter against the said company. This certificate has been filed with the Joint Director of Agriculture. A copy of that certificate dated 14.8.2007 is made available. Notwithstanding the same, the present proceedings having been initiated against the present petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the Company and vested with various other responsibilities, is therefore, put to undue hardship and inconvenience apart from the fact that the named Compliance Officer is not at all arraigned before the court, when it is such officer who would be answerable for any lapse or other irregularity on the part of the petitioner's company. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the entire proceedings against the petitioner be quashed.
6
3. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would submit that he would require to obtain instructions in the first place, as the matter has only now come up for admission and further would submit that on the face of it, there is no irregularity as the offence is by the company, which is a legal entity and is represented by the petitioner. Incidentally, if there is Compliance Officer, it would be appropriate to include the Compliance Officer as well, as the accused. There is no ground to discharge the accused or to quash the proceedings at this point of time merely on the ground that the Compliance Officer has not been arraigned as an accused.
4. It is to be noticed that the elaborate procedure for appointing a Compliance Officer for purposes of Fertilizer Control Order by the industry, is to ensure that the responsible officer is made answerable for such omissions 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 7 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 to have taken appropriate measures in the first instance to ensure that proceedings were initiated against the Compliance Officer and not any officer of the 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 8 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.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv