N. Manjappa vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 6332 Kant

                                               -1-
                                                     NC: 2023:KHC-D:10191
                                                      CRL.P No. 100103 of 2023




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
                                                BENCH
                            DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                               BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                              CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100103 OF 2023 (482-)
                       BETWEEN:
                       1.   N. MANJAPPA,
                            AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
                            R/O. POOJA GAYATRI TRADERS,
                            HALAVAGALU ROAD, YERABALU VILLAGE,
                            TQ. HARAPANAHALLI, DIST. BELLARY.

                       2.   VINAYAKA RAO,
                            AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
                            SALES MANAGER,
                            MANGALORE CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS
                            LTD., DAVANAGERE.

                       3.   BERULAL,
                            AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
                            R/O. SRI. ASHAPURI FERTILIZER,
                            NO.19/1, CHOUKIPET, DAVANAGERE-577001.
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI             4.  VIJAYANAGARA FERTILIZERS PVT. LTD.,
                           NH-63, ANANTHPUR ROAD, BELLARY-583101.
                                                               ...PETITIONERS
 Digitally signed by   (BY SRI. PRAKASH R. BADIGER, ADVOCATE)
 VIJAYALAKSHMI M
 KANKUPPI
 Date: 2023.09.11      AND:
 15:43:59 +0530
                       THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                       AGRICULTURE OFFICER AND FERTILIZER INSPECTOR,
                       FARMER CONTACT CENTRE TELAGI,
                       DIRECTOR OF ASSISTANT AGRICULTURE OFFICE,
                       HARAPANAHALLI, DIST. BELLARY.
                       BY THE STTE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                       DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580002.
                                                             ...RESPONDENT
                       (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP)
                              -2-
                                   NC: 2023:KHC-D:10191
                                    CRL.P No. 100103 of 2023




     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN THE CASE OF CC NO.
36/2022 PENDING BEFORE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.
HARAPANAHALLI, BELLARY DISTRICT. AND ALLOW THE PRESENT
PETITION AND THEREBY QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC
NO. 36/2022 AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER/ ACCUSED
NO. 1 TO 4 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 3,7 (i)(a) OF
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1955 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HARAPANAHALLI, BELLARY
DISTRICT.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in

question proceedings in C.C. No.36/2022 registered for

the offence punishable under Sections 3, 7 (i) (a) of the

Essential Commodities Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 brief facts of the case are as under :-

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10191 CRL.P No. 100103 of 2023

A private complaint came to be filed by respondent No.2 who is the Fertilizer Inspector cum Agriculture Officer by name Basavaraj Sindhigeri with J.M.F.C., Ballari.

Gist of the private complaint averments reveal in respect of fertilizer quality control programme, he went to 1st accused concern as fertilizer inspector. On enquiry, he found that unauthorized godowns were being run and unauthorized non-standard fertilizer are being sold by the 1 s t accused. Accordingly, he raided the said firm and collected the samples which were being sold in the 1st accused concern. He drew 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 aggrieved by the action initiated by the complainant, accused No.3 is before this Court seeking quashing of further proceedings on the following grounds:

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10191 CRL.P No. 100103 of 2023

a. That the impugned proceedings against the petitioner herein who is just a n employee of the company is unsustainable without prosecuting the comp any.

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 alleged offences. The present complaint being instituted without arraying the company as a party to the proceedings is vitiated by the incurable defect. Further there is misjoinder of cause of action as separate complaints ought to have been filed by the respondent No.2.

c. It is sub mitted that this Hon'ble court in the case of Shri. Bireshwar Banerjee Vs. The State of Karnataka in Crl.P. No.102568/2022 decided on 14/09/2022 has held that the prosecution under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, and Fertiliser Control Order against individual without impleading the company is not maintainable.

d. That the alleged sample was collected in the absence of the petitioner. The respondent Nol.2 has not given any

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10191 CRL.P No. 100103 of 2023

opportunity to get the samples re-analysed as per the provisions of the fertilizer control order.

e. It is sub mitted that the a common complaint as against employees of different companies wherein the cause of action is mutually exclusive, the complaint is not maintainable.

f. It is submitted that several samples of different companies are collected at the same time. The 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 petitioner vehemently contended that since the company which manufactured the fertilizer of which the sample drawn from the 1 s t accused-firm is not made as party, proceeding case against accused No.3 is uncalled for and sought for setting aside the registration of case and proceeding with the criminal case in C.C.No.132/2022.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10191 CRL.P No. 100103 of 2023

6. Per contra, High Court Government Pleader contended that non- impleading of the company which is the manufacturer of the fertilizer of which the sample is drawn is only formal in nature and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

7. In view 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 seen that Indian Farmers and Fertilizers Co-operative Limited (for short, 'IFFCO') is not made as a party to the private complaint. In order to appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to cull out Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act which reads as under:-

"10. Offences by companies.--

(1) If the person contravening an order made under section 3 is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10191 CRL.P No. 100103 of 2023

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 contravention 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 if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention.

(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 accord ingly. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,--

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10191 CRL.P No. 100103 of 2023

(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."

          9.     Since     the       company            is     not
     arraigned       as        an     accused,               taking
     cognizance      by    the       learned       Magistrate
     against      the     compliance         officer           and

Liasoning Officer, is impermissible in view of Section 10 of the E.C. Act referred to (supra).

Therefore, the order taking cognizance needs to be quashed by this Court by exercising the power vested in it U/sec.482 Cr.P.C. Hence, the following order is passed.

In the light of the issue standing covered by the

afore quoted judgment, the following.

ORDER

The criminal petition allowed.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10191 CRL.P No. 100103 of 2023

Pending proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.

No.36/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

Harappanahalli is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VB