Karnataka High Court
Devanand And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:750
CRL.P No. 200937 of 2024
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200937 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. DEVANAND S/O BAPUGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF ANNADATA CROP CARE,
B. B. ROAD, SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI.
2. BASANAGOUDA MALI PATIL
S/O VENKATRAYAGOUDA,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF SRI NANDI PESTICIDES SEEDS
FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDES DEALER,
SRI NANDI COMPLEX YADGIR ROAD, SHAHAPUR,
DIST. YADGIRI.
Digitally signed ...PETITIONERS
by
SHIVAKUMAR (BY SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE)
HIREMATH
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
AGRICULTURE OFFICER, RAITA SAMPARKA KENDRA,
SHAHAPUR,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:750
CRL.P No. 200937 of 2024
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
EXERCISE INHERENT POWERS U/SEC.482 OF CR.PC, EXAMINE
THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE TAKING COGNIZANCE IN CC
NO.688/2022 DATED 27.04.2022 (PCR NO.60/2022) FOR THE
OFFENCES U/SEC. 3(k),13,17,29 OF INSECTICIDE ACT 1968,
PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT
SHAHAPUR, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. Petitioners, who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in
CC No.688/2022 (P.C.No.60/2022) pending before the Court of
Civil Judge and JMFC, Shahapur, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 3(k), 13, 17 and 29 of the
Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for
short), are before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with
a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the above said case
as against them.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. In the present case, a private complaint was filed by the
jurisdictional Agricultural Officer before the Court of Civil Judge
NC: 2025:KHC-K:750
and JMFC, Shahapur, alleging that during the course of
inspection, it was found that the insecticide which were
displayed for sale in the retail shop/showroom of accused Nos.1
and 2 manufactured by accused No.3 was found to be of
substandard. Therefore, the sample of the said insecticide was
collected from the retail shop/showroom of accused Nos.1 and
2 and forwarded for chemical examination. In the report
received from the laboratory, it is mentioned that the sample
was of substandard and therefore, complaint was filed before
the jurisdictional Court to prosecute and punish the accused
mentioned in the complaint for the aforesaid offences. The Trial
Court having taken cognizance of the alleged offences had
issued summons to the accused and being aggrieved by the
same, accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are the owners of the show room/retail shop from
which complainant had seized the substandard insecticide
manufactured by a Company known as 'Byer Crops Science
Limited', which is arraigned as accused No.3 in the impugned
criminal proceedings. He submits that petitioners are not the
manufacturers of the seized insecticide nor were they aware
NC: 2025:KHC-K:750
that the said insecticide was of substandard. Therefore, they
cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences. In support of his
arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Kisan Beej
Bhadar, Abohar vs. Chief Agricultural Officers, Ferozepur
and Another reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 111 and also on
the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the
case of M/s. Rallis India Limited and Others vs. State of Punjab
through Insecticide Inspector passed in CRM-M-20338-2017
(O&M) dated 20.04.2022.
5. Learned HCGP submits that the seizure of insecticide was
from the retail shop/showroom of the petitioners and chemical
examination report from the competent Laboratory has certified
that the seized insecticide was of substandard quality.
Therefore, the alleged offences get attracted even as against
the petitioners. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. It is not in dispute that accused Nos.1 and 2 are the
owners of the showroom/retail shop in which substandard
insecticide manufactured by accused No.3/Company was
stored/displayed for sale. The petitioners have produced valid
NC: 2025:KHC-K:750
licence issued under the statute for stock and exhibit for sale of
insecticides.
7. Section 13 of the Act, provides for grant of licence for
manufacturing, selling, exhibiting for sale or distributing any
insecticide and the said provision is not a penal provision.
Section 17 of the Act, prohibits import and manufacture of
certain insecticides. Violation of Section 13 and Section 17 of
the Act is punishable under Section 29 of the Act. Section 29 of
the Act, provides for offences and punishment. Section 29 of
the Act, reads as follows:-
"29. Offences and punishment.--(1)
Whoever,--
(a) imports, manufactures, sells, stocks or
exhibits for sale or distributes any insecticide
deemed to be misbranded under sub-clause (i) or
sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (viii) of clause (k) of
section 3; or
(b) imports or manufactures any insecticide
without a certificate of registration; or
(c) manufactures, sells, stocks or exhibits for
sale or distributes an insecticide without a licence; or
NC: 2025:KHC-K:750
(d) sells or distributes an insecticide, in
contravention of section 27; or
(e) causes an insecticides, the use of which has
been prohibited under section 27, to be used by any
worker; or
(f) obstructs an Insecticide Inspector in the
exercise of his powers or discharge of his duties
under this Act or the rules made thereunder, [shall
be punishable --
(i) for the first offence, with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine which shall not be less
than ten thousand rupees but which may
extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both;
(ii) for the second and a subsequent
offence, with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine which
shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees
but which may extend to seventy-five thousand
rupees, or with both].
(2) Whoever uses an insecticide in
contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule
made thereunder shall be punishable with fine
[which shall not be less than five hundred rupees but
NC: 2025:KHC-K:750
which may extend to five thousand rupees, or
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months, or with both].
(3) Whoever contravenes any of the other
provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder or
any condition of a certificate of registration or licence
granted thereunder, shall be punishable--
(i) for the first offence, with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
[one year, or with fine which shall not be less
than five thousand rupees but which may
extend to twenty-five thousand rupees, or with
both];
(ii) for the second and a subsequent
offence, with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to [two years, or with fine which
shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but
which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or
with both].
(4) If any person convicted of an offence under
this Act commits a like offence afterwards it shall be
lawful for the court before which the second or
subsequent conviction takes place to cause the
offender's name and place of residence, the offence
and the penalty imposed to be published in such
NC: 2025:KHC-K:750
newspapers or in such other manner as the court
may direct."
8. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had
stocked/exhibited for sale insecticide manufactured by accused
No.3/Company which was found to be of substandard quality.
On the basis of such allegation, petitioners are asked to face
trial for the offences punishable under Sections 3(k), 13, 17
and 29 of the Act.
9. Section 33 of the Act, provides for offences committed by
the companies. Section 33 of the Act, reads as follows:-
"33. Offences by companies.--(1) Whenever
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, or 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 or that
NC: 2025:KHC-K:750
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 purpose 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."
10. From a reading of Section 33 of the Act, it is apparent
that only responsible officers of the Company, who have a role
in the conduct of business of the Company can be arraigned as
accused along with the Company and not all employees of the
Company can be arraigned as accused to face trial for the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:750
offences punishable under Section 29 of the Act. Section 30 of
the Act provides for certain defences available to accused, who
are prosecuted for the offences under the Act. Section 30 of the
Act, reads as follows:-
"30. Defences which may or may not be
allowed in prosecutions under this Act.--(1)
Save as hereinafter provided in this section, it shall
be no defence in a prosecution under this Act to
prove merely that the accused was ignorant of the
nature or quality of the insecticide in respect of
which the offence was committed or of the risk
involved in the manufacture, sale or use of such
insecticide or of the circumstances of its manufacture
or import.
(2) For the purposes of section 17, an
insecticide shall not be deemed to be misbranded
only by reason of the fact that--
(a) there has been added thereto some
innocuous substance or ingredient because the
same is required for the manufacture or the
preparation of the insecticide as an article of
commerce in a state fit for carriage or
consumption, and not to increase the bulk,
weight or measure of the insecticide or to
conceal its inferior quality or other defect; or
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:750
(b) in the process of manufacture,
preparation or conveyance some extraneous
substance has unavoidably become intermixed
with it.
(3) A person not being an importer or a
manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for the
distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a
contravention of any provision of this Act, if he
proves--
(a) that he acquired the insecticide from
an importer or a duly licensed manufacturer,
distributor or dealer thereof;
(b) that he did not know and could not,
with reasonable diligence, have ascertained
that the insecticide in any way contravened
any provision of this Act; and
(c) that the insecticide, while in his
possession, was properly stored and remained
in the same state as when he acquired it."
11. Under sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Act, certain
protection is given to person not being an importer or a
manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for the distribution
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:750
thereof, provided he proves that he comes within the clauses
(a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Act.
12. A perusal of the averments made in the private complaint
filed in the present case would reveal that there is no such
allegation against the petitioners herein that they have
contravened any one of the clauses under Sub-section (3) of
Section 30 of the Act. If the analogy that every person, who
has even stocked substandard insecticide is liable to be
prosecuted for the alleged offence is accepted, then even the
purchasers of the insecticide from the retail shop/showroom
may have to face the prosecution in a given case and therefore,
such an analogy cannot be accepted.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.
Cheminova India Limited and Another vs. State of Punjab and
Others decided on 04.08.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.750/2021 has held that proceedings under the Act cannot
be instituted against all and sundry persons of the company
and that as per mandate of Section 33 of the Act, it is clear
that responsible persons of the company alone can be deemed
to be prosecuted and liable to be proceeded against.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:750
14. For the purpose of initiating the criminal proceedings
against accused, prosecution is primarily required to show that
the said accused had mens rea to commit the offence. Doctrine
of mens rea is the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence. It
means having a guilty mind or intention. Lack of such
allegations or ingredients negates the entire situation in any
given case.
15. For the purpose of prosecuting a person for the offences
punishable under the Act, the prosecution is primarily required
to show that the accused was either aware of the quality and
contents of the product or that he had control as regards
quality and contents of the product manufactured by the
company. In the case on hand, the sample was seized from
sealed covers from the bags in which the insecticide
manufactured by accused No.3/company was stocked/exhibited
for sale by accused Nos.1 and 2 in their retail shop/showroom.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners were not responsible for
the quality or contents of the product manufactured by accused
No.3/Company and there is no such allegation in the complaint
that petitioners had stocked or displayed the product of the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:750
Company knowing very well that the said product was of
substandard quality. Petitioners being the owners of the
shop/showroom, in which products of the Company was
stocked/exhibited for sale, cannot be held vicariously liable and
be penalized for misbranding of the product in respect of which
they were not involved in the manufacturing process.
Petitioners are not the importers of the seized insecticide.
Petitioners have produced copy of valid licence issued to them
to stock or exhibit for sale of insecticides. There is no allegation
against the petitioners that they were indulged in sale of
insecticide which were not registered under the Act or
prohibited under Section 27 of the Act and therefore, Sections
17 or 18 of the Act, cannot be invoked against them. There is
no such allegation in the complaint that petitioners had not
stored the insecticide properly in their showroom/retail shop.
Under the circumstances, I am of the view that if respondent is
allowed to prosecute the petitioners for the alleged offences,
the same would amount to abuse of process of law and
therefore, the impugned proceedings is liable to be quashed as
against the petitioners. Accordingly, the following order:-
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:750
16. The petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in CC
No.688/2022 (P.C.No.60/2022) pending before the Court of
Civil Judge and JMFC, Shahapur, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 3(k), 13, 17 and 29 of the Act, as
against the petitioners is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
DN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40/CT:PK
