(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A.MALI, ADVOCATE) v. (BY SRI. AHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA)

SRI. YALLAPPA CHANNAPPA JAMAGOUDA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HARUGERI PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT, HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 220.

SRI. S. SRIKANDHAN, ASSISTANT MANAGER, PRODUCTION DEPT. MADRAS FERTILIZER LIMITED, MANALI, CHENNAI-600 068. (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A.MALI, ADVOCATE) … PETITIONERS K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY AGRICULTURAL OFFICER CUM FERTILIZER INSPECTOR, RAYAT SAMPARK KENDRA, KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI, NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. (BY SRI. AHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA) … RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.06.2023 MADE IN C.C. NO.2391/2023 (P.C.NO.97/2023) PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JMFC COURT, RAIBAG AND CONSEQUENTLY ALSO QUASH ALL ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN JUDGE AND - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2671 CRL.P No. 100650 of 2025 C.C. NO.2391/2023 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 7(i)(a) (ii) OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1955, ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RAIBAG, IN SO FAR AS THE SAME RELATE TO THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 HEREIN IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER

1. The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent – State.

2. The petitioners are being prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), stating that on 17.09.2019, he visited the premises of accused No.1. During the inspection, the complainant collected samples of a fertilizer called “17:17:17 Complex” manufactured by Madras Fertilizers Limited (“MFL”) from the fertilizer stock. Three samples were drawn, one of which was sent to a scientific laboratory. Based on the laboratory report, it was concluded that the fertilizer was of substandard quality.

After perusing the complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2671 CRL.P No. 100650 of 2025

Petitioner No.1 (accused No.1) is the Chief Executive Officer, and petitioner No.2 (accused No.2) is the Assistant Manager of Madras Fertilizers Limited (“MFL”), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, which manufactured the subject fertilizer.

Section 2(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, defines “Act” as the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, stipulates that when an offence is committed by a company, every person who, at the time of the contravention, was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business, as well as the company itself, shall be deemed guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished accordingly. Therefore, for the officers of a company to be held vicariously liable, the company itself must be arraigned as an accused.

In the present case, accused No.1 is the Chief Executive Officer, and accused No.2 is the Assistant Manager of the company that manufactured the subject fertilizer. However, the company itself has not been arraigned as an accused. As such, the petitioners (accused Nos.1 and 2) cannot be held vicariously liable. Moreover, petitioner No.1 (accused No.1) and petitioner No.2 (accused No.2) were neither responsible for nor involved in the day-to-day affairs or operations of the company. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2671 CRL.P No. 100650 of 2025