Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mahesh Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2025

                                                  -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC-K:5139
                                                         CRL.P No. 200735 of 2025


                          HC-KAR




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                           KALABURAGI BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

                                                BEFORE
                                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH


                                 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200735 OF 2025
                                         (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
                          BETWEEN:

                          MAHESH NAIK
                          S/O VIJAY S. NAIK
                          AGE: 48 YEARS
                          OCC: MANAGER
                          ZUARI AGRO CHEMICALS LTD.
                          JAI KISAN BHAVAN
                          ZUARI NAGAR
                          GOA - 403 726                            ...PETITIONER

Digitally signed by
                          (BY SRI. MANJUNATH SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE)
SREEDHARAN
BANGALORE SUSHMA
LAKSHMI                   AND:
Location: High Court of
Karnataka                 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                          DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
                          ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
                          JEWARGI, REP. BY ADDL. SPP
                          HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                          KALABURAGI BENCH - 585 107             ...RESPONDENT

                          (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABBUDIN, HCGP)
                                  -2-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC-K:5139
                                        CRL.P No. 200735 of 2025


HC-KAR




       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (OLD)

UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNNS (NEW), PRAYING TO

EXERCISE INHERENT POWERS UNDER SECTION 528 OF

BNSS, EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ENTIRE

PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.228/2022 (PRIVATE COMPLAINT

NO.14/2021)      FOR       OFFENCES       PUNISHABLE       UNDER

SECTION 19(i)(a) OF FERTILIZER (CONTROL) ORDER,

1985     AND     SECTION      7(i)(a)(ii)(d)     OF    ESSENTIAL

COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL

JUDGE     AND       JMFC    AT     JEWARGI,       AGAINST     THE

PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED       ON    09.06.2025        AND   COMING     ON    FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL

BENCH       AT        BENGALURU,             THROUGH        VIDEO

CONFERENCING, THIS DAY,                THE COURT      MADE THE

FOLLOWING:
                              -3-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC-K:5139
                                   CRL.P No. 200735 of 2025


HC-KAR




CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

                        CAV ORDER

         (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)


1.   This petition is filed by the petitioner / accused No.2,

     being aggrieved by the order of taking cognizance dated

     25.02.2022   in    C.C.No.228/2022    for   the   offences

     punishable under Section 19(i)(a) of Fertilizer (Control)

     Order, 1985 and Section 7(i)(a)(ii)(d) of the Essential

     Commodities Act, 1955, passed by the Civil Judge and

     JMFC at Jewargi.


     Factual matrix of the case:

2.   On 22.05.2015, the complainant visited the shop of

     accused No.1 i.e., M/s. Jogur Trading Company, Jeratagi

     and verified the stock maintained by accused No.1.     He

     found the fertilizer namely Zuari Agrochemical Ltd.,

     12:32:16 N.P.K. complex grade fertilizer.    He drew the

     sample from the said fertilizer bag and he noticed that

     the date of expiry and batch number were not printed on

     the bags. Thereafter, he divided the composite samples

     into three equal parts as per FCO 1985 of Para 6 of
                                  -4-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC-K:5139
                                         CRL.P No. 200735 of 2025


HC-KAR




     Schedule-II of Part A, each sample has been transferred

     immediately to a thick polythene bag. It is further stated

     that, as per the report submitted by the laboratory, the

     sample which was sent was "non-standard". Hence, a

     case came to be registered against accused Nos.1 and 2

     before the learned Magistrate by way of filing a private

     complaint. The Trial Court took cognizance for the

     offences stated supra and proceeded further. Hence, the

     petitioner / accused No.2 is before this Court.


3.   Heard Sri Manjunath Shivanna, learned counsel for the

     petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High

     Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.


4.   It is the submission of the learned counsel for the

     petitioner that, the order of taking cognizance is bad in

     law,   for   the   reason   that,    as   per   the   mandatory

     requirement, to initiate a suit or file a criminal case

     against the sub-standard or non-standard items or

     fertilizers stated to be manufactured by the Company, the

     Company has to be made as one of the accused to fix the

     liability. Unless and until the said liability is fixed against
                                -5-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC-K:5139
                                     CRL.P No. 200735 of 2025


HC-KAR




     the Company, the complaint filed by the complainant

     deserves to be quashed. Making such submissions,

     learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the

     petition and quash the proceedings against the petitioner.


5.   Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

     submits that the non-arraigning the Company as one of

     the accused is a curable defect, that can be cured even at

     the belated stage. The fact of selling sub-standard or

     non-standard fertilizer has been established by the

     complainant and it is also proved that the fertilizer of

     which the complainant had drawn the sample was sent to

     FSL and the report would indicate that it is a sub-

     standard fertilizer. Such being the fact, the petition

     cannot   be   allowed   on   flimsy   reason.   Making   such

     submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader

     prays to reject the petition.


6.   Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties

     and also perused the averments of the complaint, it

     appears from the record that the complainant being the

     Assistant Director of Agriculture, Jewargi, visited the shop
                               -6-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC-K:5139
                                     CRL.P No. 200735 of 2025


HC-KAR




     of accused No.1 and found that the fertilizer was being

     sold without having any manufacturing date and other

     standard requirements required under the law. Hence, he

     seized the said fertilizer bags and took the samples and

     sent those samples to the FSL for chemical analysis. The

     chemical analysis report would indicate that the fertilizer,

     which was being sold by the accused No.1, was sub-

     standard or non-standard. Therefore, a complaint came

     to be registered against the accused Nos.1 and 2.


7.   No doubt, the accused No.2, who is the petitioner herein

     was working as a Manager of the said Company.

     However, the Company has not been made as one of the

     accused, which is mandatory in terms of Section 10 of the

     Essential Commodities Act. Since it is a mandatory

     provision, the opportunity to bring the Company as one

     of the accused may be given before taking cognizance. If

     the cognizance is taken on the basis of the available

     record, subsequently, there is no provision to implicate

     the Company as one of the accused in order to cure the

     defect. Non-impleading the Company in a criminal case
                                     -7-
                                                  NC: 2025:KHC-K:5139
                                           CRL.P No. 200735 of 2025


HC-KAR




           is not a curable defect, infact, it is deemed to be illegal.

           Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.


8.         Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-

                                 ORDER

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

ii) The order of taking cognizance dated 25.02.2022 and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.228/2022 (Private Complaint No.14/2021), pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC at Jewargi, against the petitioner / accused No.2, is quashed.

Sd/-

(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BSS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 4