Allowed¶28

Keerthi Enterprises v. the State of Karnataka

Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 – Vicarious liability

Karnataka HC24 Feb 2025WP/101123/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench; WP No. 101123 of 2025 (GM-RES); decided 24-02-2025 by Hemant Chandangoudar, J. Quashing of C.C. No.919/2023 (Civil Judge & JMFC, Siruguppa) under Articles 226/227 r/w S.482 Cr.P.C.; offences under S.19(3) Fertilizer Control Order 1985 and S.7 Essential Commodities Act 1955; private complaint u/S.200 Cr.P.C.; laboratory sample non-conforming; Clause 24 FCO Compliance Officer not arraigned; S.10 EC Act offences by companies; dealer vs manufacturer; no vicarious liability; abuse of process; petition allowed, proceedings quashed; no precedents discussed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the entire impugned proceedings in C.C. No.919/2023 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa were quashed. ¶28

Keerthi Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The writ petition was allowed and the entire impugned proceedings in C.C. No.919/2023 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa were quashed.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners can be held responsible or vicariously liable for the offence of fertilizer not meeting specifications, given that neither the company nor the Compliance Officer appointed under Clause 24 of the Fertilizer Control Order has been arraigned as an accused, and petitioner No.1 is a dealer and not the manufacturer. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

Neither the company nor the Compliance Officer appointed under Clause 24 of the Fertilizer Control Order has been arraigned as an accused, and therefore the petitioners cannot be held vicariously liable; petitioner No.1 is only a dealer of the fertilizer and not its manufacturer, so the petitioners cannot be held responsible for manufacturing fertilizer that does not meet the required specifications.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 that apply under Clause 24 of the Fertilizer Control Order do not make the petitioners responsible for actions taken by the manufacturer of the subject fertilizer.

¶25

Key takeaways

On these facts, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 — Vicarious liability — Quashing of criminal proceedings. Petitioners (a dealer, Keerthi Enterprises, through its proprietor, and M/s Malaprabha Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director) faced trial in C.C. No.919/2023 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa for offences under Section 19(3) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, following a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in which a Fertilizer Control Laboratory, Dharwad report showed the sample did not conform to required specifications. Held (Hemant Chandangoudar, J.; 24.02.2025): the Compliance Officer appointed under Clause 24 of the Fertilizer Control Order by the manufacturer had not been arraigned as an accused, nor had the company; the Essential Commodities Act provisions applying under Clause 24 do not make the petitioners responsible for the manufacturer's actions; petitioner No.1 is a dealer, not the manufacturer; hence the petitioners cannot be held vicariously liable and continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. Writ petition under Articles 226/227 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed; proceedings in C.C. No.919/2023 quashed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3688 WP No. 101123 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 101123 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

KEERTHI ENTERPRISES DOOR NO. 128C, WARD NO. 21, SADSHIV NAGAR, SIRUGUPPA, BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MANJUNATH T.

¶6

M/S MALAPRABHA FERTILIZERS PVT. LTD GANDHI NAGAR, HALKRNI, KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591302, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ALTAF H. SHAIKH.

¶7

…PETITIONERS

¶8

(BY SRI. SADIQ N.GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.28 12:29:59 +0530

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SANJANA B., AGRICULTURE OFFICER AND FERTILIZER INSPECTOR, SIRUGUPPA, DIST. BALLARI-583121.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 482 OF Cr.P.C., PRAYING TO, QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 919/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRUGUPPA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 19(3) OF FERTILIZER CONTROL ORDER, 1985 AND SECTION 7 OF EC ACT, 1955.

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶16

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3688 WP No. 101123 of 2025

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

The petitioners, who are facing trial for offences punishable under Section 19(3) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, are before this Court seeking relief.

¶20

The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that during an inspection of the premises of petitioner No.1, samples of fertilizer stored there were sent to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Fertilizer Control Laboratory, Dharwad, for analysis. The laboratory’s report stated that the sample of the subject fertilizer did not conform to the required specifications.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent–State.

¶22

The petitioners have placed on record the appointment letter issued by M/s. Malaprabha Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer of the subject fertilizer, appointing a Compliance Officer as per Clause 24 of the Fertilizer Control Order. Clause 24 of the Fertilizer Control Order requires that every manufacturing organization, importer, and pool handling agency, in consultation with the Central Government, appoint an officer who is responsible for ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Order.

¶23

The Compliance Officer has not been arraigned as an accused. Moreover, the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, that apply under Clause 24 of the Fertilizer Control

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3688 WP No. 101123 of 2025

¶25

Order, do not make the petitioners responsible for actions taken by the manufacturer.

¶26

Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, deals with offences committed by companies. It states that if a company contravenes an order made under Section 3, then every person who, at the time of the contravention, was in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the company’s business, as well as the company itself, shall be deemed guilty of the contravention.

¶27

In the instant case, neither the company nor the Compliance Officer has been arraigned as an accused, and therefore the petitioners cannot be held vicariously liable. Petitioner No.1 is a dealer of the fertilizer and not the manufacturer of the subject fertilizer. Consequently, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for manufacturing the subject fertilizer, which does not meet the required specifications. Under these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶28

Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings in C.C. No.919/2023, pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa, are hereby quashed.

¶29

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶30

BKM Ct:vh

Keerthi Enterprises v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keerthi Enterprises v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shekbaba Alias Fruit Baba Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahanthesh Aliyas Malatesh Shubhasappa Marata Vs the State of Karnataka

Arun S/O Sharanappa Agadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Altaf Hussain Hallur Vs the State of Karnataka

Sachin Menakudale Vs the State of Karnataka

Baseersab S/O Karimsab Mulla Vs State of Karnataka