Allowed

Sri D. Venkat Krishna Reddi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2022CRL.P/101903/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner, Managing Director of a chemical company, under the Insecticides Act. Relying on Aneeta Hada, the bench held that Section 33 imposes vicarious liability only if the company is arraigned as an accused, which was not done.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.67/2022 quashed insofar as petitioner is concerned.

Sri D. Venkat Krishna Reddi Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 101903 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101903 OF 2022 (482-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI D. VENKATKRISHNA REDDI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.P.R. AGROCHEM LTD., NO.108/109, R/O: HALAVARTHI VILLAGE, TQ: DIST: KOPPAL-583231.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B MALLIGAWAD.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA-01.

¶14

SRI. N. F. KATTEGOUDAR AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: INSECTICIDES INSPECTOR CUM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, KALAGHATGI, TQ: DHARWAD-581204.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. GIRIJA S HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;

¶17

R2-HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2022 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALAGHATAGI IN CC NO.67/2022

¶19

¶20

CRL.P No. 101903 of 2022

¶21

AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.2/PETITIONER IN THE CC NO.67/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALAGHATAGI, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 13(1), 17 AND 18(1) AND 29(1) RULE 9 AND 10 OF INSECTICIDES ACT.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

In this petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.2 has sought for quashing the order dated 17.02.2022 and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.67/2022 on the file the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaghatagi.

¶25

Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are that petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. KPR Agrochem (formerly KPR Fertilizers), a manufacturer of various chemicals and fertilizers in the plant situated at East-Godawari District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶26

On 24.04.2021, respondent No.2 i.e. insecticide Inspector cum Assistant Director of Agricultural (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”) conducted

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No. 101903 of 2022

¶29

sample test at the premises of retailer M/s.Varalakshmi Agro Centre by collecting three samples of Chloropyriphos50% + Cypernethrin – 5% EC from six sealed bottles. He sent two samples to the State Pesticide Testing Lab, Dharwad and received report dated 04.05.2021 that the product is misbranded. At the request of petitioner, respondent No.2 sent the second sample to Central Laboratory Faridabad. However, it was not analyzed on the ground that the sample was broken.

¶30

However, respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner/accused No.2 and another alleging offences punishable under sections 13(1), 17 and 18(1) of Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short “the Act”). The Trial Court has taken cognizance and issued summons against which the present petition is filed.

¶31

During the course of arguments, the learned

¶32

Counsel for petitioner submits that as per section 33 of the Act, whenever an offence is committed under this Act has

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 101903 of 2022

¶35

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 business of, the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence. Therefore, without arraigning the company, the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted.

¶36

On the other hand, the learned HCGP would submit that the action of the complainant in filing the complaint and registering the case is justified and it is a matter of trial and it is for the petitioner to prove his innocence during trial.

¶37

Heard the arguments and perused the records.

¶38

Admittedly, the Trial Court has taken

¶39

cognizance against the petitioner and another for the offences punishable under sections 13(1), 17, 18(1) of the Act and Rule 9 and 10 of the Insecticide Rules, 1971.

¶40

Section 33 of the Act deals with offences by the companies. The relevant portion reads thus:

¶41

¶42

CRL.P No. 101903 of 2022

¶43

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 he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. tc "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 he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence."

¶44

Perusal of Section 33 of the Act makes it evident that wherever contravention is by a Company, then every person who, at the time the offence 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

¶45

¶46

CRL.P No. 101903 of 2022

¶47

the offence 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.

¶48

In fact, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Aneeta

¶49

Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private

¶50

Limited¹ while considering the offence committed by the company has held as follows:

¶51

“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.

¶52

1 (2012) 5 SCC 661

¶53

¶54

CRL.P No. 101903 of 2022

¶55

… … …

¶56

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 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.

¶57

59. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of

¶58

¶59

CRL.P No. 101903 of 2022

¶60

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 threeJudge 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.”

¶61

In the light of the above judgment and having

¶62

regard to the fact that the company is not arraigned as accused, I am of the considered opinion that the complaint is not tenable as against the petitioner and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶63

¶64

CRL.P No. 101903 of 2022

¶65

ORDER

¶66

The Criminal petition is allowed.

¶67

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.67/ 2022 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaghatagi, insofar as petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed.

¶68

In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

YAN

Sri D. Venkat Krishna Reddi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D. Venkat Krishna Reddi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nallasamy P S/O Palaniappan Vs the State of Karnataka

Veeresh S/O Veerayya Hiremath Vs Smt.Vedavati @ Shruti W/O Veeresh Hiremath

Anand Nagappa Pattan Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Naseem Khan S/O Kashim Khan Vs Smt.B.B.Khuteja Nasim Khan

Noorjahan W/O Yaseen Dargah Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallikarjun S/O Siddappa Mali Vs the State of Karnataka