Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 5662
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 1 ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200937 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. DEVANAND S/O BAPUGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF ANNADATA CROP CARE, B. B. ROAD, SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI.
2. BASANAGOUDA MALI PATIL S/O VENKATRAYAGOUDA, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF SRI NANDI PESTICIDES SEEDS FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDES DEALER, SRI NANDI COMPLEX YADGIR ROAD, SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURE OFFICER, RAITA SAMPARKA KENDRA, SHAHAPUR, REPRESENTED BY ADDL SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO EXERCISE INHERENT POWERS U/SEC.482 OF CR.PC, EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE TAKING COGNIZANCE IN CC NO.688/2022 DATED 27.04.2022 (PCR NO.60/2022) FOR THE OFFENCES U/SEC. 3(k),13,17,29 OF INSECTICIDE ACT 1968, PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT SHAHAPUR, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
For the Appellant :SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP
:
The court established that owners of a retail shop cannot be held criminally liable for substandard products they did not manufacture or knowingly sell, emphasizing the need for mens rea.
Headnote:(A) Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 3(k), 13, 17, and 29 - Petition to quash proceedings for alleged offences regarding substandard insecticide - Petitioners not manufacturers, unaware of the product's quality - No mens rea established - Abuse of process of law leading to quashing of proceedings. (Paras 3, 4, 10, 15, 16)
(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - Doctrine of mens rea - Essential requirement to establish intentions for prosecution in criminal law. (Paras 14)
(C) Licensing Provisions - Valid licenses presented by petitioners for stocking insecticides - No allegations of violation of licensing conditions. (Paras 6, 12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, owners of a retail shop, faced prosecution under the Insecticides Act for selling a substandard insecticide they did not manufacture nor were aware of. Allegations stemmed from an inspection reporting the insecticide's poor quality.
Findings of Court:
Criminal proceedings quashed against petitioners due to lack of evidence regarding their knowledge or responsibility for the insecticide's quality.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could be prosecuted for substandard insecticides they did not manufacture or knowingly sell.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere ownership of a retail shop does not establish liability for stocking substandard products, especially when lacking mens rea and proper accusations.
Result: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
1. Petitioners, who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC No.688/2022 (P.C.No.60/2022) pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Shahapur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (k), 13, 17 and 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), are before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the above said case as against them.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. In the present case, a private complaint was filed by the jurisdictional Agricultural Officer before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Shahapur, alleging that during the course of inspection, it was found that the insecticide which were displayed for sale in the retail shop/showroom of accused Nos.1 and 2 manufactured by accused No.3 was found to be of substandard. Therefore, the sample of the said insecticide was collected from the retail shop/showroom of accused Nos.1 and 2 and forwarded for chemical examination. In the report received from the laboratory, it is mentioned that the sample was of substandard and therefore, complaint was filed before the jurisdictional Court to prosecute and punish the accused mentioned in the complaint for the aforesaid offences. The Trial Court having taken cognizance of the alleged offences had issued summons to the accused and being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are the owners of the show room/retail shop from which complainant had seized the substandard insecticide manufactured by a Company known as ‘Byer Crops Science Limited’, which is arraigned as accused No.3 in the impugned criminal proceedings. He submits that petitioners are not the manufacturers of the seized insecticide nor were they aware that the said insecticide was of substandard. Therefore, they cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Kisan Beej Bhadar, Abohar vs. Chief Agricultural Officers, Ferozepur and Another reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 111 and also on the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of M/s. Rallis India Limited and Others vs. State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector passed in CRM-M-20338-2017 (O&M) dated 20.04.2022.
5. Learned HCGP submits that the seizure of insecticide was from the retail shop/showroom of the petitioners and chemical examination report from the competent Laboratory has certified that the seized insecticide was of substandard quality. Therefore, the alleged offences get attracted even as against the petitioners. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. It is not in dispute that accused Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of the showroom/retail shop in which substandard insecticide manufactured by accused No.3/Company was stored/displayed for sale. The petitioners have produced valid licence issued under the statute for stock and exhibit for sale of insecticides.
7. Section 13 of the Act, provides for grant of licence for manufacturing, selling, exhibiting for sale or distributing any insecticide and the said provision is not a penal provision. Section 17 of the Act, prohibits import and manufacture of certain insecticides. Violation of Section 13 and Section 17 of the Act is punishable under Section 29 of the Act. Section 29 of the Act, provides for offences and punishment. Section 29 of the Act, reads as follows:-
“29. Offences and punishment.—(1) Whoever,—
(a) imports, manufactures, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes any insecticide deemed to be misbranded under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (viii) of clause (k) of section 3; or
(b) imports or manufactures any insecticide without a certificate of registration; or
(c) manufactures, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes an insecticide without a licence; or
(d) sells or
