Bombay High Court
Sameer Padmakar Mulay And Another vs Prashant Sambhajirao Pawar on 20 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:1538
34WP1881-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1881 OF 2023
1. Mr. Sameer S/o Padmakar Mulay,
Age: 44 years, occu: Managing Director,
M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt Ltd.
Gat No.233, Chittegaon,
Tal. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Mr. Mahendra S/o Vasantrao Deshmukh,
Age: 52 years, Occu: General Manager (Quality Control)
M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd.
Gat No.233, Chittegaon,
Tal. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Mr. Prashant Sambhajirao Pawar
Age: 47 years, Major Occu: Seed Inspector and Technical
Officer (Quality Control),
O/o Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture,
Aurangabad 431001.
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Seed Inspector and
Technical Officer (Quality Control)
O/o Divisional Joint Director
of Agriculture,
Aurangabad-431001. ...RESPONDENTS
1 of 12
(( 2 )) 34WP1881-23
AND
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1897 OF 2023
1. Mr. Sameer S/o Padmakar Mulay,
Age: 44 years, occu: Managing Director,
M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt Ltd.
Gat No.233, Chittegaon,
Tal. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Mr. Mahendra S/o Vasantrao Deshmukh,
Age: 52 years, Occu: General Manager (Quality Control)
M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd.
Gat No.233, Chittegaon,
Tal. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Mr. Prashant Sambhajirao Pawar
Age: 47 years, Major Occu: Seed Inspector and Technical
Officer (Quality Control),
O/o Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture,
Aurangabad 431001.
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Seed Inspector and
Technical Officer (Quality Control)
O/o Divisional Joint Director
of Agriculture,
Aurangabad-431001. ...RESPONDENTS
AND
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1898 OF 2023
1. Mr. Sameer S/o Padmakar Mulay,
Age: 44 years, occu: Managing Director,
M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt Ltd.
Gat No.233, Chittegaon,
Tal. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.
2 of 12
(( 3 )) 34WP1881-23
2. Mr. Mahendra S/o Vasantrao Deshmukh,
Age: 52 years, Occu: General Manager (Quality Control)
M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd.
Gat No.233, Chittegaon,
Tal. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Mr. Prashant Sambhajirao Pawar
Age: 47 years, Major Occu: Seed Inspector and Technical
Officer (Quality Control),
O/o Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture,
Aurangabad 431001.
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Seed Inspector and
Technical Officer (Quality Control)
O/o Divisional Joint Director
of Agriculture,
Aurangabad-431001. ...RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. Pratik A. Bhosale, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the Respondent State
....
CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
RESERVED ON : 13.01.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 20.01.2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
both the sides, the Petitions are heard finally at the stage of
admission.
3 of 12
(( 4 )) 34WP1881-23
2. In all these Petitions, the Petitioners accused and
Respondent No. 1 / complainant are the same persons, but they had
initiated different proceedings, therefore, to avoid multiplicity, all the
petitions are taken together.
3. The Petitioner No.1 is the Managing Director and
Petitioner No.2 is the General Manager of M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt Ltd.,
prays for quashment of Criminal proceedings in (i) RCC No.265 of
2020 (ii) RCC No.266 of 2020 and (iii) RCC No.255 of 2021 pending
on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paithan, Dist.
Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Section 6, 7, 19 of
Seed Act 1966, Rule 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 of Seed Rule 1968. Clause 13
of Seed Control Order, 1983, Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act
1955, Sections 4, 12 ,13 of the Maharashtra Cotton Seed Act, 2009
and Section 15 and 16 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986.
4. The Respondent No.1 Mr. Prashant Sambhajirao Pawar,
the Seed Inspector and Technical Officer (Quality Control) attached
with Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture, Aurangabad has
independently instituted three complaints bearing (1) RCC No.265 of
2020, (2) RCC No.266 of 2020 and (3) RCC No.255 of 2021, alleging
4 of 12
(( 5 )) 34WP1881-23
that the Present Petitioner No. 1 / accused No.1 is the Managing
Director of M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd., the company is registered under
the Companies Act, 1956. M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd., produces the
various types of seeds including Cotton Seed.
5. As per Notification No. SO4215 dated 27.12.2016 issued
by the Government of India, Department of Agriculture, Co-operation
and Farmers Welfare specified minimum and maximum limits of
transgene purity. On 22.05.2021, the Respondent No.1 /
Complainant visited Seed Packing Storage and selling premises of M/s
Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Gut No.233, Chitegaon Tal. Paithan, Dist.
Aurangabad. After due compliance of the provisions of Seed Act and
Seed Rules, he collected samples from each variety of Bt. Hy. Cotton
seed manufactured by M/s Ajeet Seed Company as per procedure
prescribed under Schedule 1 of Seed Control Order 1983 and Section
15(1) of the Seed Act 1966 read with the Provision under Rule 24, 25
and 26. Thereafter, he got tested the said samples in Laboratory.
After testing the said samples, the same did not find in confirmation
with the maximum limits of transgene purity as specified under the
notification dated 27.12.2016. Therefore, it was found that the
Petitioners / accused have committed above offences.
5 of 12
(( 6 )) 34WP1881-23
6. After hearing both the sides, a question arises that,
whether the complaint is maintainable as against the Managing
Director of M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd., in absence of joining the seed
company as an accused ?
7. The learned counsel for the Petitioners / accused
canvassed in vehemence that, the Petitioners are not responsible for
production of alleged seed of which samples have been collected by
the Respondent Complainant because the Company is the
manufacturer of the Seeds of which samples are collected. Therefore,
in absence of impleading the company as an accused, the complaint is
not maintainable and the Petitioners cannot be prosecuted in absence
of joining the company as an accused.
8. To buttress these submissions, the learned counsel for the
Petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s. Godfather Travels And Tours Pvt.
Ltd., 2012 SC 2795 and Karnataka High Court in the case of Rafel
Del Riyo Vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Writ Petition no. 102512
of 2021. Apart from this, it is his submission that since the shelf life
of the seeds expired before retesting could be done, the accused /
6 of 12
(( 7 )) 34WP1881-23
Petitioners have lost their valuable and indispensable right under
Section 16(2) of the Act and therefore, the proceeding cannot be
allowed to be continued.
9. Learned APP contended that there is no allegation in
respect of non germination of seeds but the protein contains therein
are said to be not up to the mark. It is his submission that it is a
genetic character, hence, it has no shelf life unlike in case of
germination capacity. He further submits that the license issued to
the company indicates that it is a propriety firm and therefore the
petitioner No.1 is rightly described as proprietor, hence, joining
company as a party is not necessary.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised question
about maintainability of the complaint for want of joining company,
which goes to the root of the matter. Admittedly, M/s Ajeet Seeds is
private Ltd. company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
It is not in dispute that in complaint bearing (1) RCC No.265 of 2020
(2) RCC No.266 of 2020 and (3) RCC No.255 of 2021 company has
not been impleaded as an accused. The Managing Director and
General Manager of the said company is arraigned as accused in all
these complaints.
7 of 12
(( 8 )) 34WP1881-23
11. Section 21 of the Seeds Act which reads thus:-
"21. Offences by companies.- (1) Where an offence under this Act
has been committed by a company, every person who at the time
the offence 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 company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence
and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished
accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section
shall render any such person liable to any punishment under this
Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his
knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the
commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company
and it is proved 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, manager, secretary or other officer shall
also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be
proceeded 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 partner in the firm."
12. This provision abundantly makes it clear that, wherever
the company is an accused the person responsible for its management
is deemed to have committed offence. The said provision therefore is
explanatory and does not give any right for not joining company as an
accused. The said provision creates vicarious liability of the persons in
charge of the business of company and they are deemed to have
8 of 12
(( 9 )) 34WP1881-23
committed offence. In this regard, it would be material to take note
of the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Aneeta Hada Vs.
M/s. Godfather Travels And Tours Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it is held
that commission of offence by company is express condition
precedent to attract vicarious liability of the directors and others. The
said judgment was passed in the context of the provisions of Section
141 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act'). The said
provision reads thus:
"141 Offences by companies. -
(1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a
company, every person who, at the time the offence 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 company, shall be
deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded
against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in
this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he
proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that
he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such
offence: 22 [Provided further that where a person is nominated as a
Director of a company by virtue of his holding any office or
employment in the Central Government or State Government or a
financial corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government
or the State Government, as the case may be, he shall not be liable for
prosecution under this Chapter.]......."
13. Section 21 of Seeds Act and Section 141 of NI Act are pari
materia. Thus, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court leaves no
room of doubt that unless company is arraigned as an accused,
9 of 12
(( 10 )) 34WP1881-23
vicarious liability cannot be imposed upon the directors and others,
even though they are in-charge of the company and its business. In
the case in hand the seeds manufacturing Company is not impleaded
as an accused, therefore, no prosecution can be permitted to be
continued against the petitioners in the capacity of Managing Director
or General Manager of the company.
14. In the case of Managing Director of M/s Castrol India
Ltd.; 2018 ALL M. R. Cri. 465 (SC) , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that, to determine vicarious liability of Officer of Company,
clear and categorical statement that he was In charge of the conduct
of business of company in respect of which an offence is alleged to
have been committed, is required to be made. If no such statement or
averment is made in the complaint that the Managing Director was
responsible for conduct of business of the company or for commission
of any act on the basis of which an offence is alleged to have been
committed, the proceeding against the Managing Director of company
is liable to be quashed.
15. In the case in hand, admittedly, the present petitioners in
all these Petitions, are working as Managing Director and General
10 of 12
(( 11 )) 34WP1881-23
Manager, respectively, of M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd., company. The
Respondent No.1 complainant has instituted complaints bearing (1)
RCC No.265 of 2020 (2) RCC No.266 of 2020 and (3) RCC No.255 of
2021 for committing the offence punishable as stated above.
16. After going through the averments made in the
complaint, it does not reveal that, the present Petitioners are
responsible for conduct of business of M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd., and
day to day affair of production of seeds or commission of any act on
the basis of which offence is alleged to have been committed at the
hands of the present Petitioners. Therefore, considering the law laid
down in case of Aneeta Hada cited (supra), continuation of
proceedings as against the present Petitioners in the capacity of
Managing Director and General Manager of M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
would amount to abuse of process of law because alleged samples of
seeds have been manufactured by the company and no vicarious
liability can be fasten on with the Directors, hence, no Criminal
prosecution can be continued as against the petitioners without
impleading the company as an accused. Accordingly, legal question
framed in para no. 6 is answered.
11 of 12
(( 12 )) 34WP1881-23
17. In view of the above discussion, all these Petitions deserve
to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The complaints bearing RCC Nos. (1) RCC No.265 of
2020 (2) RCC No.266 of 2020 and (3) RCC No.255 of 2021
pending on file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad are hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) Resultantly, orders of issuance of process, if any, passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate in all these complaints are
also quashed and set aside to the extent of present Petitioners.
No order as to costs. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]
HRJadhav
12 of 12
