High Court
Legal Reasoning
34WP1881-23.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1881 OF 20231. Mr. Sameer S/o Padmakar Mulay,Age: 44 years, occu: Managing Director,M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt Ltd.Gat No.233, Chittegaon,Tal. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.2. Mr. Mahendra S/o Vasantrao Deshmukh,Age: 52 years, Occu: General Manager (Quality Control)M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd.Gat No.233, Chittegaon,Tal. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad...PETITIONERS VERSUS1.Mr. Prashant Sambhajirao PawarAge: 47 years, Major Occu: Seed Inspector and TechnicalOfficer (Quality Control),O/o Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture,Aurangabad 431001. 2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Seed Inspector andTechnical Officer (Quality Control)O/o Divisional Joint Directorof Agriculture,Aurangabad-431001. ...RESPONDENTS 1 of 12
Legal Reasoning
(( 2 ))34WP1881-23ANDCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1897 OF 20231. Mr. Sameer S/o Padmakar Mulay,Age: 44 years, occu: Managing Director,M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt Ltd.Gat No.233, Chittegaon,Tal. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.2. Mr. Mahendra S/o Vasantrao Deshmukh,Age: 52 years, Occu: General Manager (Quality Control)M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd.Gat No.233, Chittegaon,Tal. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad...PETITIONERS VERSUS1.Mr. Prashant Sambhajirao PawarAge: 47 years, Major Occu: Seed Inspector and TechnicalOfficer (Quality Control),O/o Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture,Aurangabad 431001. 2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Seed Inspector andTechnical Officer (Quality Control)O/o Divisional Joint Directorof Agriculture,Aurangabad-431001. ...RESPONDENTSANDCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1898 OF 20231. Mr. Sameer S/o Padmakar Mulay,Age: 44 years, occu: Managing Director,M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt Ltd.Gat No.233, Chittegaon,Tal. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. 2 of 12 (( 3 ))34WP1881-232. Mr. Mahendra S/o Vasantrao Deshmukh,Age: 52 years, Occu: General Manager (Quality Control)M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd.Gat No.233, Chittegaon,Tal. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad...PETITIONERS VERSUS1.Mr. Prashant Sambhajirao PawarAge: 47 years, Major Occu: Seed Inspector and TechnicalOfficer (Quality Control),O/o Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture,Aurangabad 431001. 2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Seed Inspector andTechnical Officer (Quality Control)O/o Divisional Joint Directorof Agriculture,Aurangabad-431001. ...RESPONDENTS.…Mr. Pratik A. Bhosale, Advocate for the PetitionersMr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the Respondent State.…CORAM: Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.RESERVED ONPRONOUNCED ON:: 13.01.2025 20.01.2025 JUDGMENT :- 1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent ofboth the sides, the Petitions are heard finally at the stage ofadmission. 3 of 12 (( 4 ))34WP1881-232.In all these Petitions, the Petitioners accused andRespondent No. 1 / complainant are the same persons, but they hadinitiated different proceedings, therefore, to avoid multiplicity, all thepetitions are taken together. 3.The Petitioner No.1 is the Managing Director andPetitioner No.2 is the General Manager of M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt Ltd.,prays for quashment of Criminal proceedings in (i) RCC No.265 of2020 (ii) RCC No.266 of 2020 and (iii) RCC No.225 of 2021 pendingon the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Section 6, 7, 19 ofSeed Act 1966, Rule 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 of Seed Rule 1968. Clause 13of Seed Control Order, 1983, Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act1955, Sections 4, 12 ,13 of the Maharashtra Cotton Seed Act, 2009and Section 15 and 16 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986. 4.The Respondent No.1 Mr. Prashant Sambhajirao Pawar,the Seed Inspector and Technical Officer (Quality Control) attachedwith Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture, Aurangabad hasindependently instituted three complaints bearing (1) RCC No.265 of2020, (2) RCC No.266 of 2020 and (3) RCC No.225 of 2021, alleging 4 of 12 (( 5 ))34WP1881-23that the Present Petitioner No. 1 / accused No.1 is the ManagingDirector of M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd., the company is registered underthe Companies Act, 1956. M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd., produces thevarious types of seeds including Cotton Seed. 5.As per Notification No. SO4215 dated 27.12.2016 issuedby the Government of India, Department of Agriculture, Co-operationand Farmers Welfare specified minimum and maximum limits oftransgene purity. On 22.05.2021, the Respondent No.1 /Complainant visited Seed Packing Storage and selling premises of M/sAjeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Gut No.233, Chitegaon Tal. Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad. After due compliance of the provisions of Seed Act andSeed Rules, he collected samples from each variety of Bt. Hy. Cottonseed manufactured by M/s Ajeet Seed Company as per procedureprescribed under Schedule 1 of Seed Control Order 1983 and Section15(1) of the Seed Act 1966 read with the Provision under Rule 24, 25and 26. Thereafter, he got tested the said samples in Laboratory.After testing the said samples, the same did not find in confirmationwith the maximum limits of transgene purity as specified under thenotification dated 27.12.2016. Therefore, it was found that thePetitioners / accused have committed above offences. 5 of 12 (( 6 ))34WP1881-236.After hearing both the sides, a question arises that,whether the complaint is maintainable as against the ManagingDirector of M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd., in absence of joining the seedcompany as an accused ?7.The learned counsel for the Petitioners / accusedcanvassed in vehemence that, the Petitioners are not responsible forproduction of alleged seed of which samples have been collected bythe Respondent Complainant because the Company is themanufacturer of the Seeds of which samples are collected. Therefore,in absence of impleading the company as an accused, the complaint isnot maintainable and the Petitioners cannot be prosecuted in absenceof joining the company as an accused. 8.To buttress these submissions, the learned counsel for thePetitioners placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court inthe case of Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s. Godfather Travels And Tours Pvt.Ltd., 2012 SC 2795 and Karnataka High Court in the case of RafelDel Riyo Vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Writ Petition no. 102512of 2021. Apart from this, it is his submission that since the shelf lifeof the seeds expired before retesting could be done, the accused / 6 of 12 (( 7 ))34WP1881-23Petitioners have lost their valuable and indispensable right underSection 16(2) of the Act and therefore, the proceeding cannot beallowed to be continued.9. Learned APP contended that there is no allegation inrespect of non germination of seeds but the protein contains thereinare said to be not up to the mark. It is his submission that it is agenetic character, hence, it has no shelf life unlike in case ofgermination capacity. He further submits that the license issued tothe company indicates that it is a propriety firm and therefore thepetitioner No.1 is rightly described as proprietor, hence, joiningcompany as a party is not necessary. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised questionabout maintainability of the complaint for want of joining company,which goes to the root of the matter. Admittedly, M/s Ajeet Seeds isprivate Ltd. company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.It is not in dispute that in complaint bearing (1) RCC No.265 of 2020(2) RCC No.266 of 2020 and (3) RCC No.225 of 2021 company hasnot been impleaded as an accused. The Managing Director andGeneral Manager of the said company is arraigned as accused in allthese complaints. 7 of 12 (( 8 ))34WP1881-2311. Section 21 of the Seeds Act which reads thus:-"21. Offences by companies.- (1) Where an offence under this Acthas been committed by a company, every person who at the timethe offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsibleto, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, aswell as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offenceand shall be liable to be proceeded against and punishedaccordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-sectionshall render any such person liable to any punishment under thisAct if he proves that the offence was committed without hisknowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent thecommission of such offence.(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),where an offence under this Act has been committed by a companyand it is proved that the offence has been committed with theconsent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on thepart of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of thecompany, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shallalso be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to beproceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation. For thepurposes of this section, - (a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm orother association of individuals; and(b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm."12. This provision abundantly makes it clear that, whereverthe company is an accused the person responsible for its managementis deemed to have committed offence. The said provision therefore isexplanatory and does not give any right for not joining company as anaccused. The said provision creates vicarious liability of the persons incharge of the business of company and they are deemed to have 8 of 12 (( 9 ))34WP1881-23committed offence. In this regard, it would be material to take noteof the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Aneeta Hada Vs.M/s. Godfather Travels And Tours Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it is heldthat commission of offence by company is express conditionprecedent to attract vicarious liability of the directors and others. Thesaid judgment was passed in the context of the provisions of Section141 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act'). The saidprovision reads thus:"141 Offences by companies. -(1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is acompany, every person who, at the time the offence was committed,was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conductof the business of the company, as well as the company, shall bedeemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceededagainst and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained inthis sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if heproves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or thathe had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of suchoffence: 22 [Provided further that where a person is nominated as aDirector of a company by virtue of his holding any office oremployment in the Central Government or State Government or afinancial corporation owned or controlled by the Central Governmentor the State Government, as the case may be, he shall not be liable forprosecution under this Chapter.]......."13. Section 21 of Seeds Act and Section 141 of NI Act are parimateria. Thus, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court leaves noroom of doubt that unless company is arraigned as an accused, 9 of 12 (( 10 ))34WP1881-23vicarious liability cannot be imposed upon the directors and others,even though they are in-charge of the company and its business. Inthe case in hand the seeds manufacturing Company is not impleadedas an accused, therefore, no prosecution can be permitted to becontinued against the petitioners in the capacity of Managing Directoror General Manager of the company. 14.In the case of Managing Director of M/s Castrol IndiaLtd.; 2018 ALL M. R. Cri. 465 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble SupremeCourt held that, to determine vicarious liability of Officer of Company,clear and categorical statement that he was In charge of the conductof business of company in respect of which an offence is alleged tohave been committed, is required to be made. If no such statement oraverment is made in the complaint that the Managing Director wasresponsible for conduct of business of the company or for commissionof any act on the basis of which an offence is alleged to have beencommitted, the proceeding against the Managing Director of companyis liable to be quashed. 15.In the case in hand, admittedly, the present petitioners inall these Petitions, are working as Managing Director and General 10 of 12 (( 11 ))34WP1881-23Manager, respectively, of M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd., company. TheRespondent No.1 complainant has instituted complaints bearing (1)RCC No.265 of 2020 (2) RCC No.266 of 2020 and (3) RCC No.225 of2021 for committing the offence punishable as stated above. 16.After going through the averments made in thecomplaint, it does not reveal that, the present Petitioners areresponsible for conduct of business of M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd., andday to day affair of production of seeds or commission of any act onthe basis of which offence is alleged to have been committed at thehands of the present Petitioners. Therefore, considering the law laiddown in case of Aneeta Hada cited (supra), continuation ofproceedings as against the present Petitioners in the capacity ofManaging Director and General Manager of M/s Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,would amount to abuse of process of law because alleged samples ofseeds have been manufactured by the company and no vicariousliability can be fasten on with the Directors, hence, no Criminalprosecution can be continued as against the petitioners withoutimpleading the company as an accused. Accordingly, legal questionframed in para no. 6 is answered. 11 of 12
Decision
(( 12 ))34WP1881-2317.In view of the above discussion, all these Petitions deserveto be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:ORDER(i)The complaints bearing RCC Nos. (1) RCC No.265 of2020 (2) RCC No.266 of 2020 and (3) RCC No.225 of 2021pending on file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad are hereby quashed and set aside. (ii)Resultantly, orders of issuance of process, if any, passedby the learned Judicial Magistrate in all these complaints arealso quashed and set aside to the extent of present Petitioners.No order as to costs. Rule is made absolute in above terms. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]HRJadhav 12 of 12