Karnataka High Court
S. Srikandhan vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2024
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:810
CRL.P No.201810 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201810 OF 2023 (482)
BETWEEN:
S. SRIKANDHAN S/O V. SANTHANAM
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT MANAGER,
MADRAS FERTILIZER LIMITED PLOT NO.24-B,
DOOR NO.5/5, SANKARI KRUPA, NAJIB AVENUE,
MUNU ADI STREET EXTENSION,
CHITTALA PAKKAM, CHENNAI-64.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/ BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed
by SHILPA R KALABURAGI-585102.
TENIHALLI R/BY PRASHANT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
Location: HIGH AGRICULTURE AND FERTILIZER INSPECTOR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SINDHANUR, TQ. SINDHANUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE DATED 11.06.2021
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JMFC, SINDHANUR, IN CC
NO.2334/2021 (PC NO. 168/2021) FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SECS. 3 AND 7 OF THE ESSENTIAL
COMMODITIES ACT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:810
CRL.P No.201810 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of taking cognizance dated 11.06.2021 by the Principal JMFC, Sindhanur in C.C.No.2334/2021 arising out of P.C.No.168/2021 for the offences under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
2. The allegations disclose that the complainant has lodged a private complaint on behalf of the State against the present petitioner and accused No.2 alleging that on 22.02.2014, the complainant visited M/s. Ambika Trading Company and taken the sample of fertilizers 17:17:17 for examination which was manufactured by Madras Fertilizer Limited. On analysis, the complainant has received a report that the fertilizer is of sub-standard and hence, he issued notice and then, initiated this prosecution.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:810 CRL.P No.201810 of 2023
3. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the complaint has taken cognizance, since the complaint was lodged by a public officer in his official capacity and issued process against the petitioner, who was a Assistant Manger in Madras Fertilizers.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without impleading the company as an accused, the prosecution of the petitioner, who is an Assistant Manager is not permissible. There is no dispute that the fertilizers were alleged to have been manufactured by Madras Fertilizer and they were alleged to have been distributed to M/s. Ambika Trading Company, but both the companies were not prosecuted by the complainant and the prosecution is only against the Assistant Manager and accused No.2 Jayanna. Without impeading or making the companies as parties, the prosecution against the individual persons who were in-charge of the companies is not at all sustainable. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed and the -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:810 CRL.P No.201810 of 2023 complainant is at liberty to prosecute the companies and proceed in accordance with law. As such, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 11.06.2021 passed by the Principal JMFC, Sindhanur in C.C.No.2334/2021 arising out of P.C.No.168/2021 stands quashed.
However, this order does not come in the way of the complainant in prosecuting the petitioners, if they are in-charge/administrators/controllers of the companies, after prosecuting the companies.
In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2023 filed for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19