[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Virabhadrayya vs State Of Karnataka on 12 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7774
CRL.P No. 201880 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201880 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. VIRABHADRAYYA
S/O MANIPAKSHAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF M/S DIVYA AGRO AGENCIES
GANDHI GUNJ, BIDAR-585401.
2. PAVAN KUMAR UPPALPATI,
S/O HANUMANTH RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT 7-78 DN COLONY, MUTHANGI,
BEHIND SHARADHA HIGH SCHOOL, ISNAPUR
MEDAK, TELANGANA-502307.
Digitally signed RESPONSIBLE PERSON AT
by RENUKA M/S ARIES AGRO LTD.,
Location: HIGH PLT NO.244-246, 250-252,
COURT OF IDA, PHASE II, PASHAMAILARAM (V),
KARNATAKA
PATANCHERU (M),
SANGAREDDY-502307 TELANGANA.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
FERTILIZER INSPECTOR AND ASSISTANT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7774
CRL.P No. 201880 of 2025
HC-KAR
DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE (VIGILANCE),
SHRI. MACHENDRANATH VADDI,
OFFICE OF JOINT DIRECTORS,
BIDAR-585401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ANITHA M. REDDY., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW),
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
ACCUSED/PETITIONERS IN C.C. NO. 4081/2025 ARISING OUT
OF PCR 236/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC BIDAR FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 2(J),
13(1) AND (2) OF FERTILIZER CONTROL ORDER, 1985,
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(I)(A)(II) OF THE ESSENTIAL
COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the accused persons in
C.C.No.4081/2025 arising out of PCR No.236/2024 on the
file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Bidar, seeking
quashing of the proceedings filed by the respondent
against the petitioners for alleged violation of Sections
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7774
HC-KAR
2(j), 13(1)(a) and (2) of Fertilizer (Inorganic, organic or
mixed) (Control) Order, 1985 punishable under Section
7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent
and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various
contentions urged in the petition and referring to the
material placed on record, learned counsel for the
petitioners drew my attention to the complaint to
highlight that petitioner No.1, stated to be the responsible
person of M/s. Divya Agro Agencies, and petitioner No.2,
stated to be the responsible officer of M/s. Aries Agro Ltd.,
have been arrayed as accused without impleading the said
proprietary concern and partnership firm. It is contended
that, in terms of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955 (for short, the EC Act), arraigning the firm or
company is a mandatory requirement whenever persons in
charge of, or responsible to, the business entity are sought
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7774
HC-KAR
to be prosecuted. Therefore, non-arraignment of the
proprietary firm and partnership firm would vitiate the
entire proceedings. Reliance is placed on the judgment of
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shri Mahesh Naik v.
State of Karnataka, Crl.P.No.100296/2023 dated
07.02.2023.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader submits that the petition is devoid of merit and
that no grounds are made out for exercise of inherent
jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.
5. Having considered the rival submissions, I find
merit in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners.
Section 10 of the EC Act mandates that, in prosecutions
relating to alleged violations of Sections 2(j), 13(1)(a) and
13(2) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, the business
entity--whether a proprietary concern, partnership firm, or
company--must be arrayed as an accused along with the
persons responsible for its conduct. Failure to implead the
firm renders the proceedings unsustainable. A Co-ordinate
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7774
HC-KAR
Bench of this Court, in Mahesh Naik (supra), has
categorically held that non-arraignment of the firm or
company is fatal to the prosecution, observing as under:
" Learned High Court Government Pleader takes
notice for respondent / State.
2. The question involved in this petition since
being by a decision of this Court rendered in
Crl.P.No.102651/2022 dated 14.09.2022, with the
consent of both the learned counsel, petition is taken
up for disposal.
3. The petitioner has sought to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.573/2021 pending on the file
of the Court of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol.
4. A private complaint is filed by the Fertilizer
Inspector-cum-Assistant Director of Agriculture,
(HQ), O/o Joint Director of Agriculture, Bagalkote,
against the petitioner and another alleging that they
have committed an offence under Clause 19 of the
Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 ('FCO, 1985' for
short) read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, for having manufactured and sold
the non- standard fertilizer.
5. Accused No.1 is said to be the owner /
proprietor of the firm M/s. Mahantesh Enterprises,
doing business as a retailer in fertilizers and the
petitioner/accused No.2 is said to be the Compliance
Officer of one ZUARI AGRO CHEMICAL LTD. It is
alleged that he is responsible officer for 19-19-19
complex fertilizer of Zuari Agro Chemical Ltd., as per
Clause 24 of the FCO, 1985 and the said company
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7774
HC-KAR
has manufactured the non-standard fertilizers in
question and supplied to the retailers and thereby
committed the aforementioned offence.
6. The charges leveled against the petitioner is
that he has violated Clause 19 of the FCO, 1985 read
with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities
Act. Admittedly, the company is not arraigned as an
accused in the complaint. In similar circumstances, a
co-ordinate bench of this Court in the above referred
petition has held as under:
"8. Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act,
1955, deals with the offence by Companies and it
reads as follows:
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 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 subsection
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 subsection
(1), where en 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
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7774
HC-KAR
guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly.
9. Perusal of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955 makes it evident that wherever
contravention is by a Company, then every person
who, at the time the contravention was committed,
was in charge of, and was responsible to, the
compa`ny forthe 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.
Therefore, petitioner is being made liable on account
of he being an employee of Company in question and
therefore, until and unless the company is arraigned
as accused, the petitioner cannot be held
responsible.
10. In fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Aneeta Hada
Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited
while considering the offence committed by the
company has held as follows:
"53. It is to be borne in mind that Section 141 of the
Act is concerned with the offences by the company.
It makes the other persons vicariously liable for
commission of an offence on the part of the
company. As has been stated by us earlier, the
vicarious liability gets attracted when the condition
precedent laid down in Section 141 of the Act stands
satisfied. There can be no dispute that as the liability
is penal in nature, a strict construction of the
provision would be necessitous and, in a way, the
warrant.
56. We have referred to the aforesaid passages only
to highlight that there has to be strict observance of
the provisions regard being had to the legislative
intendment because it deals with penal provisions
and a penalty is not to be imposed affecting the
rights of persons, whether juristic entities or
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7774
HC-KAR
individuals, unless they are arrayed as accused. It is
to be kept in mind that the power of punishment is
vested in the legislature and that is absolute in
Section 141 of the Act which clearly speaks of
commission of offence by the company. The learned
counsel for the respondents have vehemently urged
that the use of the term "as well as" in the section is
of immense significance and, in its tentacle, it brings
in the company as well as the Director and/or other
officers who are responsible for the acts of the
company and, therefore, a prosecution against the
Directors or other officers is tenable even if the
company is not arraigned as an accused. The words
"as well as" have to be understood in the context.
59. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the
irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the
prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning
of a company as an accused is imperative. The other
categories of offenders can only be brought in the
drag- net on the touchstone of vicarious liability as
the same has been stipulated in the provision itself.
We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V.
Parekh [(1970) 3 SCC 491: 1971 SCC (Cri) 97)
which is a three-Judge Bench decision. Thus, the
view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal [(1984) 4 SCC
352: 1984 SCC (Cri) 620] does not correctly lay
down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled.
The decision in Anil Hada [(2000) 1 SCC 1: 2001
SCC (Cri) 174] is overruled with the qualifier as
stated in para 51. The decision in Modi Distillery
[(1987) 3 SCC 684: 1987 SCC (Cri) 632] has to be
treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been
explained by us hereinabove."
7. In the light of the above decision, proceedings
against the petitioner is not sustainable in law.
8. Hence, the following:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7774
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) Petition is allowed,
ii) The proceedings against the petitioner / accused
No.1 in C.C.No.573/2021 on the file of the Court of
Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, is quashed.
IA-1/2023 is disposed of."
6. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the
complaint has been lodged solely against the petitioners. A
plain reading of the complaint makes it evident that
although the allegations pertain to the functioning and
activities of M/s. Divya Agro Agencies and M/s. Aries Agro
Limited, neither the proprietary concern nor the
partnership/company has been arrayed as accused. The
prosecution has been initiated only against the individuals
who are described as responsible persons of the said
entities.
7. Section 10 of the EC Act creates a specific
statutory mandate that when an offence under the Act or
any order issued thereunder is alleged to have been
committed by a company, firm, or other business entity,
such entity must be prosecuted along with the persons in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7774
HC-KAR
charge of, and responsible for, its conduct. The liability of
the individuals is, therefore, not independent but is
intrinsically linked to the arraignment of the business
concern itself.
8. In the absence of the mandatory impleadment
of M/s. Divya Agro Agencies and M/s. Aries Agro Limited,
the proceedings initiated solely against the petitioners
suffer from a fundamental legal infirmity. This defect goes
to the root of the matter and renders the entire
prosecution unsustainable. The impugned action, thus
being in clear contravention of Section 10 of the EC Act,
cannot be permitted to stand and warrants interference by
this Court. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings deserve
to be quashed.
9. In the result, the following order is passed:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7774
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The petition stands allowed.
(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.
4081/2025, arising out of PCR No. 236/2024 for violation
of Sections 2(j), 13(1)(a) and (2) of Fertilizer (Inorganic,
organic or mixed) (Control) Order, 1985 punishable under
Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar,
insofar as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NJ
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 46
CT:SI
