Allowed

P Ramesh Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Aug 2022CRL.P/2501/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings against a company employee. The court held that a marketing manager without knowledge of manufacturing details cannot be liable for specific section violations.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 589 of 2020 are quashed against the petitioner accused No.3.

P Ramesh Krishnappa Vs State of Karnataka — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 2501 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2501 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed byPADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

P RAMESH KRISHNAPPA S/O K. R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT KALABHAIRAVESHWARA NILAYA ADI SHAKTI NAGAR RAMPUR POST CHICKKAMAGLUR – 577 133 MARKETING MANAGER P I INDUSTRIES LTD. NO 38/1, WEST PARK ROAD, 13^TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU 560 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B.,ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR AND ASSISTANT AGRICULTURE DIRECTOR OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR APMC YARD, A BLOCK, DAVANAGERE – 577 003 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶10

¶11

CRL.P No. 2501 of 2021

¶12

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.589/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III-JMFC, DAVANAGERE (ANNEXURE-A) AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN, ALLEGING OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 9,13,3(K),29 OF INSECTICIDE ACT, 1968 (ACCUSED No.3) AND IT IS FURTHER PRAYED THAT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS QUA THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT BE STAYED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PRESENT PETITION.

¶13

THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.589 of 2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections 9, 13, 3K & 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (‘the Act’ for short).

¶16

Heard Sri R.B. Sangamesh, learned counsel

¶17

appearing fo the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 2501 of 2021

¶20

Brief facts of the case that lead the petitioner to

¶21

this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

¶22

The petitioner is a Marketing Manager of a company by name P.I. Industries Limited (‘the Company’ for short). The Company manufactures several products namely insecticides, pesticides and herbicides, natural bioproducts etc.. One such product that is manufactured by

¶23

the Company is called ‘bio-vita’. The products of the Company are distributed to various centres. One such centres was Vijayalakshmi Traders at Davangere. The Insecticides Inspector visits or inspects Vijayalakshmi Traders and draws up samples of bio-vita manufactured by the Company. Based upon the samples that were drawn from the dealer of the Company a report was prepared observing that insecticide bio-vita is a sea weed extract and did not contain essential micro-nutrients that are necessary to be in the natural source. Based upon the

¶24

¶25

CRL.P No. 2501 of 2021

¶26

sample so drawn and the aforesaid report a complaint comes to be registered against Vijayalakshmi Traders Company, the Company and the petitioner. The role of the petitioner even according to the complaint is that he is working as Marketing Manager.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is working as a Marketing Manager in the Company and he would market the products of the Company. The contents of the products or the manufacturing process are not known to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be alleged of offences punishable under the Act. The learned High Court Government Pleader would however contend that there is a clear narration in the complaint that the petitioner is aware of the contents of the products that are manufactured by the company and, therefore, it becomes a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean.

¶28

¶29

CRL.P No. 2501 of 2021

¶30

The afore-narrated fact of manufacture of bio-vita product by the Company is not in dispute. The petitioner functions in the Company as a Marketing Manager is also not in dispute. The position of the petitioner is not in dispute and the allegation against the Company is that having manufactured a product - bio-vita which does not contain essential micro nutrients, knowledge of such manufacture or the Company involved in the said manufacture can hardly be alleged or justified, as admittedly the position of the petitioner is a Marketing Manager who markets the products of the Company. Therefore, hauling the petitioner into the web of the crime for offences punishable under the provisions of the Act as alleged would, if permitted to continue, result in miscarriage of justice. It is at best for the Company and the persons involved in the manufacturing of the said product who would be required to answer the allegation and not the petitioner. The company itself is made an accused in the proceedings. Therefore, it is for the

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 2501 of 2021

¶33

Company or any other accused who are arrayed to answer the same in a manner known to law.

¶34

For the aforesaid reasons, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.589 of 2020 pending before the JMFC, III Court at Davangere are quashed. It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order or quashment of proceedings against the petitioner (accused No.3) would not bind or influence any proceedings initiated against the other accused.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

P Ramesh Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Ramesh Krishnappa 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Farooq Ur Rehaman Vs State by Lashkar P.S

S K Prabhu Vs the State of Karnataka

Om Sai Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Lakshmanan M Vs State of Karnataka

Sridhar @ Sreedhara C Vs State by

Mr Ismail S Vs State of Karnataka