The prosecution against individuals for corporate violations is unsustainable without arraignment of the company as an accused, as mandated by Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act.

ORDER :

(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.)

This petition by the petitioner-accused No.1 in C.C.No.5990/2024 arising out of un-numbered PCR of 2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Harihara, seeking quashing of the proceedings filed by the respondent against the petitioner for alleged violation of Section 20(C) (5) of Fertilizers (Inorganic, organic or mixed) (Control) Order, 1985 punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner viz., the Cropex Ltd., was arraigned as accused No.2 in C.C.No.5990/2024 along with accused No.1, arising out of un- numbered PCR of 2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihara for the offences punishable under Section 20(C) (5) of Fertilizers (Inorganic, organic or mixed) (Control) Order, 1985 punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

4. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to an order of this Court in order to point out that the proceedings as against accused No.1 has been quashed in Manjunatha T.N., Vs. State of Karnataka - W.P.No.1605/2025 dated 14.02.2025. In view of quashment of criminal proceedings qua accused No.1, the present petitioner, who is accused No.2 in C.C.No.5990/2024 would be entitled to seek parity.

5. This Court in the case of Manjunatha T.N., supra held as under :

This petition by the petitioner-accused No.1 in C.C.No.5990/2024 arising out of un-numbered PCR of 2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Harihara, seeking quashing of the proceedings filed by the respondent against the petitioner for alleged violation of Section 20(C) (5) of Fertilizers (Inorganic, organic or mixed) (Control) Order, 1985 punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned complaint in order to point out that the petitioner working as responsible person at Falca E Solutions Pvt. Ltd., it was incumbent upon the respondent- complainant to arraign the aforesaid company as party to the proceedings in terms of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, the ‘EC Act’). It is submitted that non-arraignment of the aforesaid company as party in terms of Section 10 of the EC Act would vitiate the entire proceedings, which deserves to be quashed as held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Mahesh Naik Vs. The State of Karnataka – Crl.P.No.100296/2023 dated 07.02.2023.

4. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 10 of the EC Act mandates that in a proceedings in relation to offence under Section 7 of the EC Act, r/w Section 19(A)(B) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, it was incumbent upon the respondent-complainant to arraign the company as party along with the petitioner to the proceedings in the absence of which the entire proceedings would be vitiated as held by this Court in Mahesh Naik’s case supra, wherein it was held as under:

“Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondent / State.

2. The question involved in this petition since being by a decision of this Court rendered in Crl.P.No.102651/2022 dated 14.09.202