Allowed

Mr. Sanjay Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2020CRL.P/4285/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against a Managing Director for sub-standard fertilizer offences. Relying on coordinate bench decisions, the court held that when a nominated officer handles production and quality control, the Managing Director is not directly liable.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.316/2011 against petitioner-accused No.2 for offences under the Fertilizer (Control) Order and Essential Commodities Act are quashed.

Mr. Sanjay Gowda Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4285 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. SANJAY GOWDA MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S PACIFIC FERTI PRODUCTS & SERVICE (P) LTD., (P.S.P.S.P.L) UPPARA HOSA HALLI SHANTHIGRAMA POST HASSAN-573201 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEEPAK B.R., ADVOCATE- THROUGH VC)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REP BY FERTILIZER INSPECTOR SHIVANNA, S/O LATE NAGAPPA FERTILIZER INSPECTOR JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE OFFICE KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.S. HEDGE, SPP-II)

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN C.C.NO.316/2011 BEFORE THE II A.C.J. J.M.F.C. KADUR AGAINST THE

¶12

¶13

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 FOR OFFENCE P/U/S. 19 (a), 19(b) AND 19(c) (v) OF THE FERTILIZER (CONTROL) ORDERS, 1985 (AS AMENDED IN 2006) R/W SEC. 3 AND 7 OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner – accused No.2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.316/2011 pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Kadur for the offences punishable under Sections 19 (a), 19(b) and 19(c) (v) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 (as amended in 2006) read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as against the petitioner – accused No.2.

¶17

I have heard Sri.Deepak, B.R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V.S.Hegde, learned SPP-II for the respondent and perused the records.

¶18

¶19

Though the present petition has been listed for the purpose of admission, the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶20

One Agricultural Officer cum Fertilizer Inspector filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner – accused No.2 is the manufacturer and liable to be penalized for manufacturing sub-standard quality fertilizer and supplied it to accused No.1 and in turn, accused No.2 sold the same to the farmers. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.

¶21

It is the submission of the learned counsel

¶22

for the petitioner – accused No.2 that accused No.2 being a Managing Director of the Company is not directly involved or connected with the production or quality control of the fertilizers. It is his further submission that the Production Manager/Manager

¶23

¶24

Quality Control should have been arraigned as an accused and not the Managing Director of the Company. It is his further submission that the criminal petition launched against the Managing Director is not maintainable in view of Government Order issued by the Commissionerate of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture vide order No.FRT/TA(FC) No.99-20002001-02 dated 14.02.2002 which indicates that the appointment of an officer is mandatory for compliance of Fertilizer Control Order by fertilizer industry. In pursuance of the said letter, Fertilizer Manufacturers have nominated persons for compliance of Fertilizer Control Order as per the provisions of Clause 24 of the FCO, 1985. It is further submitted that some of the manufacturers have nominated Regional Manager, Branch Manager, Chief Manager Marketing, General Manager (Marketing), Area Sales Manager, Sales Executive etc. It is further submitted that the rank of such persons should not be below the rank of Manager

¶25

¶26

– Production or Manager Quality Control. It is his further submission that in pursuance of said order, One Venkat Swamy has been nominated in the year 2005 and subsequently, the nomination has been renewed and the same has been acknowledged by the office of the complainant. It is his further submission that the Managing Director is no way directly involved and responsible for the manufacturing of the said fertilizers. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings.

¶27

Per contra, learned SPP-II appearing for the respondent has vehemently argued and submitted that though the Government Order dated 14.02.2002 has been given effect to but however the Director and Managing Director will have a full control over the affairs of the manufacturing unit. The nomination which is going to be made is only for the purpose of the quality control and in that light, vicariously the

¶28

¶29

Managing Director – accused No.2 is also equally liable to the said Act and in that light, the proceedings initiated as against the petitioner – accused No.2 is sustainable. It is his further submission that whether the affairs are under the control of the accused is a matter which has to be tried and appreciated only when full fledged trial is going to be held. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶30

I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶31

It is the specific contention of the learned

¶32

counsel for the petitioner – accused No.2 that one Venkat Swamy has been nominated as Production Manager in compliance of Rule 24 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order since 2005 and subsequently, the nomination has also been renewed in the years 2008 and 2012 and he is incharge of the production and

¶33

¶34

quality control. When the said Venkat Swamy has been nominated as Production and Quality Controller and in pursuance of the said letter stated supra which indicates that if the nomination has been made for the purpose of the quality control, then under such circumstances, he alone is liable to be prosecuted. Similar question came up before Co-ordinate benches, they have accepted the said arguments and quashed the proceedings in Crl.P No.6648/2017 dated 07.06.2019, Crl.P No.9890/2017 dated 07.06.2019, Crl.P No.2134/2017 dated 07.06.2017, Crl.P No.3132/2017 and Crl.P No.7408/2015.

¶35

When the issue involved in the present case has been covered by the judgments of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the proceedings against the Managing Director were quashed, under such circumstances, in order to maintain uniformity of law

¶36

¶37

and order, I feel that it is just and necessary to accept

¶38

the same.

¶39

Though it is contended by the learned SPP-II that the Managing Director is also equally responsible along with the persons nominated under Rule 24 of FCO, 1985, since the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court have not been challenged on similar facts and circumstances and under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the said contention cannot be acceptable. Taking into consideration the above factual matrix of the case on hand and the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings as prayed for.

¶40

In the light of the discussion held above, petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.316/2011 pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Kadur for the offences

¶41

¶42

punishable under Sections 19 (a), 19(b) and 19(c) (v) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 (as amended in 2006) read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 insofar as petitioner – accused No.2 is concerned are hereby quashed.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Prs*

Mr. Sanjay Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sanjay Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagaraj M N Vs the State of Karnataka

Saifulla Kahan @ Khalid Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Umesh @ Umesh N D Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Vivek Prathap Makhija Vs State of Karnataka

Imran Jalal @ Bilal Ahmed @ Kota Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Koenraad Jan Wentink Vs Sri. Subhra Lahiri