Sri Arun Kumar R Wali Vs H.N. Naveen Kumar

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:2774 CRL.P No. 12241 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12241 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI ARUN KUMAR R WALI AGED 37 YEARS S/O REVANASIDDAPPA MANAGER (MARKETING) RASTRIYA CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZERS LIMITED PRESENTLY WORKING IN GULBARGA ALSO AT R/AT SANIK SCHOOL GATE ATHAVI ROAD, BIJAPUR 586102

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR

¶10

SRI. K SHRIHARI.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

H.N. NAVEEN KUMAR FERTILIZER INSPECTOR OF AGRICULTURE OFFICER FARMER CONTACT CENTRE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573116

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.2022/2024 (PCR NO.255/2024) ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HASSAN TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT FOR

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:2774 CRL.P No. 12241 of 2024

¶19

CONTRAVENTION OF CLAUSE 11 OF FERTILIZER (REGULATION) ORDER 1985 AND FERTILIZER MOVEMENT CONTROL ORDER 1973 AND SECTION 3 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶23

"Quash the entire proceedings in CC.No.2022/2024 (PCR No.255/2024) on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Hassan taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act for contravention of Clause 11 of Fertiliser [Regulation] Order 1985 and Fertiliser Movement Control Order 1973 and Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, as against this Petitioner herein."

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶25

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent, who is the Fertilizer Inspector and Agriculture Officer filed the aforesaid PCR No.255/2024 before the trial Court inter alia contending that the petitioner - accused No.2 along with accused

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:2774 CRL.P No. 12241 of 2024

¶28

Nos.1 and 3 had committed offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶29

It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the petitioner is the manufacturer of the fertilizers in question while the accused No.1 is the retailer and the accused No.3 is the transporter of the fertilizers. In fact, the petitioner is the Marketing Manager of one Rastriya Chemical and Fertilizers Limited [the Company incorporated under the Companies Act] which is an independent jurisdictional legal entity, which has to necessarily be arraigned as an accused as contemplated under Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which reads as under:

¶30

" 10. Offences by companies .―(1) If the person contravening an order made under section 3 is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention 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 the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:

¶31

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:2774 CRL.P No. 12241 of 2024

¶34

knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention.

¶35

(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."

¶36

As is clear from the aforesaid provision, in the event the offence is said to have been committed by an Incorporated Company viz ., Rastriya Chemical and Fertilizers Limited of which the petitioner is only the Marketing Manager, it would be incumbent upon the respondent to arraign the Company along with the petitioner as an accused to the proceedings. However, in the instant case, the aforesaid Company of which the petitioner is the Marketing Manager, has not been arraigned as an accused and under identical circumstances, this Court in the case of Sri. Anil G.

¶37

Mathur Vs. Assistant Director of Agriculture (VIG) and Fertilizer Inspector¹ , has held as under:

¶38

1 Criminal Petition No.8366/2023 decided on 21.11.2023.

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:2774 CRL.P No. 12241 of 2024

¶41

"The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that, on inspection of the shop belonging to the accused No.1, the samples of the subject fertilizer was collected, and was sent to the test analyst for analysis. The test analyst submitted a report stating that the subject fertilizer manufactured by the company, of which the petitioner is Executive Director, is of sub-standard quality, and not accordingly to the specification. The respondent issued notice to the company on 3.9.2014 as to why action should not be taken for manufacturing sub-standard fertilizer. The company sent a reply dated 17.12.2014 to the notice issued by the respondent refuting the claim of the respondent-Fertilizer Inspector.

¶42

2. The learned Magistrate after perusing the complaint took cognizance of the offences in contravention of Section 28(1) of the Fertilizer Control Order 1985. Taking exception of the same this petition is filed.

¶43

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is an Executive Director of the company which manufactured the subject fertilizer, and the company having not been arraigned as an accused, the petitioner cannot be held vicariously guilty as stated under Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶44

4. On the other hand, learned HCGP for the respondent-State would submit that the petitioner who is the Executive Director of the company had manufactured the subject fertilizers which was not in accordance to the specification, has committed the aforesaid offence, and the

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:2774 CRL.P No. 12241 of 2024

¶47

veracity of the allegation against the petitioner can be considered at the time of trial, and the same cannot be gone into in this petition.

¶48

5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties

¶49

6. The Act as defined under section 2 of the Fertilizer Control Order 1985, means the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶50

7. Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 deals with the offences by the company, and it specifies that if a person contravening an order is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention 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 the contravention. In other words, the officer in-charge of the company can only be held vicariously guilty along with the company.

¶51

8. In the instant case, petitioner is the Executive Director of the Company which had manufactured and which is declared as of substandard quality. Hence, the company having not been arraigned as an accused, the petitioner who is the Executive Director of the company cannot be held vicariously guilty along with the company as specified under Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Hence, the complaint filed by the respondent without arraying the company is not maintainable, and cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate stands vitiated. Therefore, the

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:2774 CRL.P No. 12241 of 2024

¶54

continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶57

ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.10475/2021, on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, for the offences punishable under Section 7(1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, insofar it relates to the petitioner herein stands quashed.

¶58

In the aforesaid judgment, this Court came to the conclusion that in the absence of arraignment of the company of which the petitioner was working as the Marketing Manager, the petitioner cannot be held to be vicariously liable so as to attract the offence under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and consequently, the continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner - accused No.2 would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶59