Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
Cropex Ltd., Represented By Dr. Satwik Joglekar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Represented By Joint Director of Agriculture – Respondent
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 q
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.
A company must be arrayed as an accused for its officer to be vicariously liable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Prosecution against individuals for corporate offenses is improper without including the company as a party to the proceedings, as established in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Order taking cognizance of offence must show application of mind by Magistrate.
the absence of any material to show that petitioner is responsible for the quality of fertilizers seized, the proceedings now initiated against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of la....
Liability for sub-standard fertilizer lies with the manufacturer, not the marketing company, especially when samples are taken from sealed packets.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
