Allowed

Villiam Robart v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2022CRL.P/100467/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka held that a Quality Control Officer cannot be held vicariously guilty of misbranding under the Insecticides Act, 1968, as the company was not arraigned. The court quashed the proceedings against the accused as probability of conviction was remote.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition was allowed and the impugned proceedings in CC No. 744/2009 against the petitioner-appellant were quashed.

Villiam Robart Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 100467 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100467 OF 2017 (482-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VILLIAM ROBART, S/O RABART JAN, T. STAINS and COMPANY LIMITED, NO.8/23-24, RESAKORSE ROAD, KOYIMATTUR CORRECT ADDRESS. WILLIAM ROBERT, S/O ROBER JOHN, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATION) T-STAINS AND COMPANY, R/O: 8/23-24, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. J BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH THE ASST. AGRICULTURAL DIRECTOR AND INSECTICIDES INSPECTOR, HIGH CIOURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI V S KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION, QUASH THE COMPLAINT, ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE(DATED 5.1.2006 IN OLD CRIMINAL CASE NO. 30 OF 2006) AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERE TO IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 744 OF 2009 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL JMFC, BAGALKOT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

CRL.P No. 100467 of 2017

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The 2^nd respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC alleging that the insecticide manufactured by T-Stains and Company Limited of which accused No.3, who is a Quality Control Officer, is mis-branded. The learned Magistrate after perusing the complaint took the cognizance of the offence under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and issued summons. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the company having not been arraigned as an accused, the petitioner – accused No.3, who is the Quality Control Officer of the substandard fertilizer, which is manufactured by the company, cannot be held vicarious guilty of the offence punishable under Section 29 of the Act as specified under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968.

¶21

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State submits that the petitioner – accused, who is the Quality Control Officer, is alone responsible for manufacturing of the substandard insecticide

¶22

¶23

CRL.P No. 100467 of 2017

¶24

and the learned Magistrate has rightly taken the cognizance of the aforesaid offence and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶25

I have examined the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶26

It is undisputed that the petitioner – accused has been arraigned as an accused alleging that he is the Quality Control Officer of the substandard insecticide which is misbranded and manufactured by the Company. Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 specifies that if 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. In the instant case, the company having not been arraigned as an accused, the petitioner – accused who is the Quality Control Officer in the company cannot be held vicarious guilty of the offence. In view of the same, the continuation of criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No. 100467 of 2017

¶29

of law since the probability of conviction of the petitioner – accused is remote and bleak. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶32

ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.744/2009

¶33

pending on the file of the I Additional JMFC, Bagalkot insofar as it relates to petitioner – accused No.3 is hereby quashed.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 103

¶36

BKM

Villiam Robart v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Villiam Robart v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annavva W/O Mahalingappa Chennal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Shafiulla Mubarak Golandaj Vs Shri.Yamanappa Jetteppa Chaluvadi

A Sampath Kumar S/O a Veeranna Vs Smt. Ramya W/O a Sampath Kumar

Channavva W/O. Chandragouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahalakshmi D/O Mallayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Kottapally Timmappa Alias Timmaraj Vs Hescom Vigilance Police Station