Under Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the company manufacturing substandard fertilizers, along with responsible directors, managers, and quality control officers, should be arraigned as accused in criminal proceedings.

Heard Sri Ravi K. Anoor, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, learned High Court

Government Pleader.

2.

The present petition is filed under Section 482

of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer :-

“To

exercise inherent powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. examine the records and

quash the order of taking cognizance in C.C.

No.1993/2022,

dated

26.03.2022

(private

complaint No.28/2022), for the offence under

Sections 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities

Act, 1955, pending before the Civil Judge and

JMFC court at Indi, against the petitioners.”

3.

Though the matter is listed for admission with

the consent of the parties, the same is taken up for final

disposal.

4.

Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of

the petition are as under :

4

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the proprietors of M/s A.

C. Dhanashetti Fertiliser and M/s M. C. Dhanashetti

Fertiliser and petitioner No.3 is the Managing Director of

M/s Ghataprabha Fertilisers Private Limited. They have

been arraigned as accused persons in Private Complaint

No.28/2022 and cognizance was taken. They have been

summoned before the learned jurisdictional magistrate by

exercising power under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., for the

offences punishable under Sections 7(1)(a) (ii) of Essential

Commodities Act, 1955, (for short, hereinafter referred to

as ‘the EC Act’). In the private complaint, it is contended

that Sri A. C. Dhanashetti, the first petitioner was dealing

with the fertilisers. On a raid being conducted they found

that samples collected from his proprietorship concern was

of inferior quality. So also Sri M.C. Dhanashetti, the second

accused who is the proprietor of another fertiliser shop and

samples collected from his concern also were of inferior

quality. Third accused is the Managing Director of M/s.

Ghataprabha Fertilisers Private Limited and he is the one

who supplied the manure fertiliser to accused Nos.1 and 2.

5

5.

The order of the learned trial judge passed on

26.03.2022 reads as under:

“Date:26.03.2022

This is a complaint filed by the complainant

State through Inspector of Fertilizer for the

offences punishable U/Sec.7(1)a) (ii) of Essential

Commodities Act, 1955 for violating U/s.19(a) and

(b) Fertilizer Control Order 1985.

The complainant is authorized to file the

complaint

by

his

appointment orders

dated:

03.10.2016. The accused No.1 is said to be

carrying on the business of sale of Fertilizers.

Accused No.2 is said to dealer in Fertilizer. Accused

No.3 is the manufacturer of Fertilizer. The Fertilizer

Inspector – complainant - Sri. A. P. Biradar is said

to has visited shop of Accused No.1 on 14.12.2019

and found that Accused No.1 is in possession of low

quality fertilizer in shop at Tamba village, Tq.Indi.

The Complainant has seized said low quality

fertilizer from the shop of accused No.1. The

complainant is a Public Officer and has filed

complaint in his official capacity. Hence, recording

of sworn statement as contemplated U/Sec.200 of

Cr.P.C. is not required in the complaint filed by the

Govt. Servant. This position of law is contemplated

6

in the proviso appended to Section 200 of Cr.P.C.,

which reads as under:

"200.

Examination

of

complainant.-

A

Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on

complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant

and the witnesses present, if any, and the

substance of such examination shall be reduced to

writing and shall be signed by the complainant and

the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:

Provided that, when the complaint is made

in writing, the Magistrate need not examine

the complainant and the witnesses--

a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act

in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has

made the complaint; or

b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for

inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section

192.

Provided further that if the Magistrate makes

over the case to another Magistrate under section

192 after examining the complainant and the

witnesses, the latter Magistrate need