✦ Karnataka High Court · 19 Jan 2026

PRAVEEN G D v. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AND FERTILIZER INSPECTOR RAITHA SAMPARKA KENDRA

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. Elaborating the submission, learned counsel would contend that Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act incorporates the principle of vicarious liability, which can be fastened on officers or employees of a company only when the company itself is prosecuted as the principal offender. In…
  • Para 88. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The entire proceedings pending in C.C.No.1027/2011, arising out of P.C.R No.119/2010, on the file of the Principal Civil - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:2645 CRL.P…

Judgment

(BY SRI. K.SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE) AND: AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AND FERTILIZER INSPECTOR RAITHA SAMPARKA KENDRA KUNDANA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU -560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:2645 CRL.P No. 6369 of 2025 HC-KAR PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1027/2011 PCR NO.119/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI AS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER FOR THE O/P/U/SEC.7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT FOR CONTRAVENTION OF CLAUSE 19(1)(B) OF FERTILISER (REGULATION) ORDER 1985 AND FERTILISER MOVEMENT CONTROL ORDER 1973 AND SECTION 3 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.1027/2011 arising out of the PCR No.119/2010 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli for the offences punishable under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act alleging contravention of Clause 19(1)(b) of the Fertilizer (Regulation) Order, 1985 and Fertilizer Movement Control Order, 1973 and Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2645 CRL.P No. 6369 of 2025 HC-KAR

#2. The petitioner, who is employed as a Marketing Officer with Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Mumbai, has approached this Court being aggrieved by the registration of crime and the consequential filing of charge sheet by the Investigating Officer, pursuant to which proceedings have been initiated against him C.C.No.1027/2011.

#3. The principal contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the very initiation of criminal proceedings pursuant to a private complaint in P.C.R No.119/2010 is legally unsustainable inasmuch as the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted in his capacity as an employee/Marketing Officer of a Company, without arraying the Company itself as an accused. It is contended that such prosecution is in clear violation of the statutory mandate contained Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which governs offences committed by companies and prescribes the conditions under which persons in charge of and - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:2645 CRL.P No. 6369 of 2025 HC-KAR responsible to the company can be proceeded against. Reliance is placed on the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.8366/2023, wherein an identical question of law fell for consideration.

#4. Elaborating the submission, learned counsel would contend that Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act incorporates the principle of vicarious liability, which can be fastened on officers or employees of a company only when the company itself is prosecuted as the principal offender. In the present case, the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, allegedly contravention of Clause 19(1)(b) of the Fertilizer (Regulation) Order, 1985, the Fertilizer Movement Control Order, 1973 and Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act solely in his individual capacity. The Co-ordinate Bench, while interpreting Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has categorically held that unless the company is arrayed as an accused, its officers or - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:2645 CRL.P No. 6369 of 2025 HC-KAR employees cannot be proceeded against on the basis of vicarious liability. The said legal position squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

#5. The learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent-State, fairly concedes the legal proposition laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench, and does not dispute the applicability of the said judgment to the case on hand.

#6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having bestowed anxious consideration to the material on record, as also the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in Criminal Petition No.8366/2023, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution launched against the petitioner is fundamentally defective. The failure on the part of the complainant and the prosecuting agency to array the Company as an accused strikes at the very root of the proceedings rendering them vitiated in law. In the absence of prosecution of the - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:2645 CRL.P No. 6369 of 2025 HC-KAR Company, the invocation of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act against an employee is impermissible. Continuation of such proceedings would not only be contrary to the statutory scheme but would also result in sheer abuse of the process of Court, particularly when the possibility of securing a conviction is virtually non-existent.

#7. Therefore, applying the settled principles laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench and in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice, this Court finds it a fit case to quash the impugned proceedings.

#8. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The entire proceedings pending in C.C.No.1027/2011, arising out of P.C.R No.119/2010, on the file of the Principal Civil - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:2645 CRL.P No. 6369 of 2025 HC-KAR Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the alleged contravention of Clause 19(1)(b) of Fertilizer (Regulation) Order, 1985, the Fertilizer Movement Control Order, 1973 and Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, are hereby quashed. (iii) All consequential proceedings, if any, shall also stand terminated. (iv) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528; Essential Commodities Act — ss. 3, 7, 10; Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — ss. 7, 10.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Karnataka High Court, on 19 Jan 2026. The bench was SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Petition No. 6369 of 2025). ← Search more judgments