Karnataka High Court
Sridhar Giriyannavar vs Shri Pranesh on 4 October, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14836
CRL.P No. 103157 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103157 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRIDHAR GIRIYANNANAVAR,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: WORKING AS MANAGER IN CRIYIAGEN
AGRICULTURE AND BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,
R/O. JANAMATTI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI I.Y. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI PRANESH,
THE FERTILIZER INSPECTOR CUM
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE (VIGILANCE-2),
HAVERI-581110,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed by
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: High Court of
DHARWAD BENCH-580011.
Karnataka Dharwad
Date: 2024.10.07 10:13:19
+0530 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER TO QUASH
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER
IN CC NO.68/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7
OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1975 AND 19(A) OF FERTILIZERS
CONTROL ORDER, ARISING OUT OF PCR NO.25/2021, WHICH IS
PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HANGAL & ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14836
CRL.P No. 103157 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C. No.68/2021 registered for the offence punishable under Clause 19(a) of Fertilizers Control Order, 1985 and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.101235/2023. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has held as follows:
3. The brie f facts of the case are as unde r :-
A private complaint came to be filed by respondent No.2 who is the Fe rtilizer Inspector cum Agriculture Office r by name Basavaraj Sindhige ri with J .M.F.C., Ballari. Gist of the private complaint averments reve al in respect of fertilize r quality control programme, he went to 1st accused concern as fe rtilize r inspector. On enquiry, he found that unauthorized godowns were being run and unauthorized non-standard -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:14836 CRL.P No. 103157 of 2024 fertilize rs are be ing sold by the 1st accuse d. Accordingly, he raided the said firm and collected the samples which were be ing sold in the 1 s t accused concern. He dre w the mahazar with regard to drawing of samples and sent the same to laboratory and found that the samples are non-standard and therefore, sought for action against the petitioner herein.
4. Being aggrieve d by the action initiated by the complainant, accuse d No.3 is before this Court seeking quashing of further proceedings on the following grounds:
a. That the impugned proceedings against the petitioner he rein who is just an employee of the company is unsustainable without prosecuting the company.
b. That the Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, provides that the employee of the company as well as the company have to be prosecuted for the any alle ged offence s. T he present complaint being instituted without arraying the company as a party to the proceedings is vitiate d by the incurable defe ct. Further there is misjoinder of cause of action as separate complaints ought to have been filed by the respondent No.2.
c. It is submitted that this Hon'ble court in the case of Shri. Bireshwar Banerjee Vs. The -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:14836 CRL.P No. 103157 of 2024 State of Karnataka in Crl.P. No.102568/2022 decide d on 14/ 09/ 2022 has he ld that the prosecution unde r the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, and Fertilise r Control Orde r against individual without impleading the company is not maintainable.
d. That the alleged sample was collected in the absence of the pe titione r. The respondent Nol.2 has not given any opportunity to ge t the samples re-analysed as per the provisions of the fertilize r control order.
e. It is submitted that a common
complaint as against employees of diffe rent
companies whe re in the cause of action is
mutually exclusive, the complaint is not
maintainable.
f. It is submitted that se veral samples
of different companies are collected at the same time. T he sample forms do not disclose whether the samples collected were from the expired products as such the complaint is not maintainable.
5. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Sri.Santosh B Malligawad, learned counsel for the pe titione r vehemently contended that since the company which manufactured the fertilize r of which the sample drawn from the 1 s t accused- firm is not made as party, proceeding -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:14836 CRL.P No. 103157 of 2024 case against accused No.3 is uncalled for and sought for setting aside the registration of case and proceeding with the crim inal case in C.C.No.132/ 2022.
6. Per contra, High Court Gove rnme nt Pleader conte nde d that non- imple ading of the company which is the manufacturer of the fertilize r of which the sample is drawn is only formal in nature and there fore, sought for dismissal of the petition.
7. In vie w of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is se en that Indian Farmers and Fertilizers Co-operative Lim ited (for short, 'IFFCO') is not m ade as a party to the private complaint. I n orde r to appre ciate the conte ntions urge d on behalf of the petitione r, it is necessary to cull out Se ction 10 of the Essential Commodities Act which reads as under:-
"10. Offences by companies.--
(1) If the person contravening an orde r made unde r 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 -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:14836 CRL.P No. 103157 of 2024 company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contrave ntion and shall be liable to be proceede d against and punished accordingly: Provide d that nothing contained in this sub-section shall re nder any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due dilige nce to preve nt such contravention.
(2) Notwithstanding anything containe d in sub-section ( 1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is prove d 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, manage r, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be procee ded 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 partne r in the firm ."
9. Since the company is not arraigned as an accuse d, taking cognizance by the learned -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:14836 CRL.P No. 103157 of 2024 Magistrate against the compliance office r and Liasoning Office r, is impermissible in vie w of Section 10 of the E.C. Act re ferre d to (supra) .
Therefore, the order taking cognizance needs to be quashed by this Court by exe rcising the power vested in it U/sec.482 Cr.P.C. He nce, the following orde r is passe d.
3. In the light of the issue standing covered by the afore quoted judgment, the following ORDER
(i) The criminal petition allowed.
(ii) Pending proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.68/2021 on the file of the leaned Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE EM / CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2