Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
VENKATESH NAIK T.
Mallikarjungouda, S/o. Ishwaragouda Kollur – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka, Represented By SPP – Respondent
ORDER :
(VENKATESH NAIK T., J.)
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C ., praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.1768/2022 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushtagi, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'E.C. Act').
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant, who is respondent herein, was working as Assistant Agricultural Officer in the Department of Agriculture, Shahapur, he filed a private complaint before the jurisdictional Court on behalf of State on 20.09.2022 for the aforesaid offences alleging that he visited the shop of petitioner No.1 and he was not having the original letter “O” and he was in storage of phosphate rich organic manure (DOP) 18.46.0 organic fertilizer for sale which was found in 70 bags and each bag carrying 50 kg and thus, he collected samples from the said bags for the purpose of sample in prescribed manner under the act and at the same time, he conducted the panchanama at the spot. Further it is alleged by respondent No.2 in his complaint that as per the FERTILIZER CONTROL ORDER 1985 clause 28(1) out of 3 samples, first
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.
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.
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....
A company must be arraigned as an accused for vicarious liability to apply under Section 138 of the N.I. Act; thus, prosecution of directors is invalid without this requirement.
A person cannot be prosecuted individually for a company's offense unless they are shown to be directly responsible.
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
