Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The criminal petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Accordingly, the continuation of the impugned proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The criminal petition is allowed. ii. The impugned proceedings C.C. No.730/2022 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC., Hirekeruru insofar…
Judgment
SRI. K. BASAVARAJ, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, (EARLIER WORKED AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HAUNSABHAVI), R/O. HAUNSABHAVI, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581111. (BY SRI. I. Y. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY. SMT. UMA R. BYADIGI, THE FERTILIZER INSPECT CUM AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, HAUNSABHAVI (RSK), TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI. R/BY. THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011. (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO QUASH ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THIS PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO. 2 IN C.C. NO. 730/2022 ARISING OUT OF PCR NO.55/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3 AND 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, HIREKERUR AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7554 CRL.P No. 101772 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
Heard Sri.I.Y.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
Petitioner/accused No.2 has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.730/2022 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekeruru.
Petitioner/accused No.2 who prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short, ‘the E.C.Act’), 1955, has approached this Court seeking relief.
As per the prosecution case, prosecution alleges that subject fertilizer manufactured by Future Biotech, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, are of sub-standard. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7554 CRL.P No. 101772 of 2025 HC-KAR
A perusal of the complaint, indicates that petitioner/accused No.1 is the managing Director of Future Biotech, and accused No.2 is the Chief Executive Officer of the Society, where the subject fertilizers were seized and sent for analysis. However, the company itself has not been arrayed as an accused in the complaint.
The provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, are made applicable to the Fertilizers (control) Order, 1985, as per Clause 2(2) of the said order. Section 10 of the Essential Commodities act states that if an offence is committed by a company, then every person who, at the time of the contravention was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of its business, as well as the company itself, shall be deemed guilty of contravention. Therefore, in the absence of company being arrayed as an accused in the complaint, the petitioner, as a retailer of the subject fertilizer, cannot be held guilty under Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7554 CRL.P No. 101772 of 2025 HC-KAR
Operative part
Accordingly, the continuation of the impugned proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The criminal petition is allowed. ii. The impugned proceedings C.C. No.730/2022 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC., Hirekeruru insofar as it relate to petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned hereby quashed. iii. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of, as not survive for consideration. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AC /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The criminal petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Essential Commodities Act — ss. 3, 7; Companies Act, 2013; Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — s. 10.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.