Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with the following

prayer:

<Wherefore, it is prayed that the Hon9ble Court be

pleased to exercise inherent powers under Section

482 Cr.P.C., examine the records and quash the

- 3 -

taking cognizance in C.C.No.2050/2021 (Private

Complaint No.160/2021), dated 05.08.2021, for

the offence under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential

Commodities

Act

1955,

pending

before

the

Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC., Court at Raibag,

against the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 in the

interest of justice and equity.=

Heard Sri Avinash A Uplaonkar, learned counsel

for the petitioners and Sri Ramesh Chigari, High Court

Government Pleader for the respondents 3 State and

perused the records.

3.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

Sri Prashantha H. Sani, Agricultural Officer cum

Fertilizer Inspector filed a complaint under Section 7(i)(a)(ii)

of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 200 of

Cr.P.C. In the complaint it is contended that Mallikarjuna

Shegunasi is the owner of the firm/company namely Om

Madhav Fertilizers, situated at Harugeri, Raibag Taluk,

Belagavi District, which is dealing with the fertilizers and

holds the necessary licence. On 18.09.2019 at about 11.00

- 4 -

a.m., complainant visited the business premises of the

accused No.1 and had a routine inspection and at that

juncture, he drew sample of the Fertilizers called 10:26:26

complex from the Fertilizers stock and noted in Form J by

following required procedure. Thereafter same was sent to

laboratory at Belagavi. Report received from the laboratory

revealed that the sample drawn by the Fertilizer Inspector

was of substandard quality and therefore it was sent to the

dealer. A show cause notice as contemplated under the

provisions of law was also issued.

4.

Insofar as accused No.1 and 2 concerned, they

are representing the sales and distribution.

5. The learned Magistrate on receipt of the complaint,

perused the material on record and took cognizance of the

offence punishable under Section 7 (i) (a) (ii) of Essential

Commodities Act 1955.

6.

The petitioners herein have challenged the order

taking cognizance on several grounds. The main ground on

which, the challenge to the cognizance order is petitioner are

- 5 -

in no way connected with the alleged offence, inasmuch as,

he is not authorized officers under the E.C. Act to be

proceeded to the alleged violation.

7.

In this regard, it is just and necessary to cull out

Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, which reads as

under:

<10. Offences by companies:-

(1) If the person contravening an order

made under section 3 is a company, every person

who,

at

the

time

the

contravention

was

committed, was in charge of, and was responsible

to, the company for the conduct of the business

of the company as well as the company, shall be

deemed to be guilty of the contravention and

shall be liable to be proceeded against and

punished accordingly: Provided that nothing

contained in this sub-section shall render any

such person liable to any punishment if he proves

that the contravention took place without his

knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence

to prevent such contravention.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in

sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act

- 6 -

has been committed by a company and it is

proved that the offence has been committed with

the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to

any neglect on the part of any director, manager,

secretary or other officer of the company, such

director, manager, secretary or other officer shall

also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and

shall be liable to be proceeded against and

punished

accordingly.

Explanation.4For

the

purposes of this section,4

(a) <company99 means any body corporate,

and includes a firm or other association of

individuals; and

(b) <director99 in relation to a firm means a

partner in the firm."

8.

He further contended that the petitioners are not

control officer and without arraigning the com