Employees cannot be held vicariously liable for corporate offences unless the corporation is arraigned as an accused.

1. The petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.376 of 2024, on the file of III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are charged with committing the alleged offences under Section 19(1) and (A) of the Fertilizer (Control) order, 1985 and Section 7 (1)(A) of the Essential Commodities Act , 1955.

3. It is submitted that the 1^st petitioner is shown as a proprietor of M/s.Sree Srinivasa Traders, and the 2^nd petitioner is shown as Person Responsible of M/s.Greenstar Fertilizers.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2^nd petitioner is only employee of the company, and the samples of the Mono Ammonium Phosphate manufactured by the Green Star Fertilizers were drawn for testing. Upon receipt of the report of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Cittoor, the samples were found to be not in accordance with the specifications. On the strength of the said report, the 1^st respondent has filed the complaint before the Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that without arraigning the company as an accused, the proprietor of M/s.Sree Srinivasa Traders and the employee of the company cannot be vicariously liable for the commission of the alleged offences.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court for the State of Karnataka in W.P.No.15071 of 2023 . The initiation of criminal prosecution for alleged offences under the Fertilizer (Control Order) and the Essential Commodities Act was considered by the Karnataka High Court. In that case, the manufacturer of the subject fertilizer was not arraigned as an accused, and it was held that without arraigning the company, the petitioners cannot be held vicariously liable. On these grounds, the writ petition was allowed, and the proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class were quashed.

7. A similar view was taken by the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited vs. State of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.101492 of 2022 .

8. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, in Crl.M.Nos.496 of 2021 and 878 of 2021 , has taken a similar view. In those cases, the petitioners were shown as officers of the company and were shown as accused. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the manufactures of the seeds whose sample were drawn by the respondent No.1 authority for the purpose of testing. Without arraigning the manufacturing of the seeds, the criminal liability cannot fastened on the employees of the company. 9. Considering the submissions, this Court, it in its considered opinion, following the judgments of the High Court for the State of Karnataka, holds that the prosecution lodged by the 1^st respondent cannot withstand the scrutiny of law.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.376 of 2024, on the file of III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor, are hereby quashed.