- 1 -
CRL.P No. 101935 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101935 OF 2022 (482)
BETWEEN:
1.
VEERANNA S/O. FAKIRAPPA SIDDANAGOUDAR
AGE.50 YEARS,
OCC.EXECUTIVE OF PKPS
(KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGHA) MURAGOD,
TQ.SAVADDTI,
DIST.BELAGAVI
R/O.P.O.MURAGOD,
DIST.BELAGAVI-591119
2.
VASANT S/O BABU VANTAMURE
AGE.52 YEARS,
OCC.COMPLIANCE OFFICER
GHATAPRABHA FERTILIZERS PVT LTD 329/1
NADIKURALI, TQ.RAIBAG,
DIST.BELGAUM-591317,
R/O.WARD NO.2, SUGAR FACTORY ROAD,
RAIBAG, DIST.BELAGAVI-591317
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AVINASH A UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH-580011
Digitally
signed by
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL
Location:
DHARWAD
- 2 -
CRL.P No. 101935 of 2022
2.
THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
REP BY THE SEED/FERTILIZER INSPECTOR AND
AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
RAITA SAMPARKA KENDRA MURGOD,
TQ.SAVADATTI,
DIST.BELAGAVI-591119
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH CHIGARI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO EXERCISE INHERENT POWERS U/SEC. 482
CR.P.C., EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE TAKING
COGNIZANCE IN CC NO. 860/2017(PRIVATE COMPLAINT NO.
77/2017), DATED 02-06-2017, FOR THE OFFENCE U/S. 7(i)(a)(ii)
OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1955, PENDING BEFORE
THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT SAUNDATTI,
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
THIS APPEAL/PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
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.860/2017 (Private
Complaint No.77/2017), dated 02.06.2021, for the
offence under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential
Commodities Act 1955, pending before the Civil
Judge and JMFC., Court at Saudatti, 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:
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 petitioner No.1 Veeranna is the Chief
Executive PKPS (Krishi Pattin Sahakari Sangha) Murgod Tq,
petitioner
No.2
3
Vasant
is
the
compliance
officer,
Ghataprabha Fertilizers Pvt Ltd., which is dealing with the
fertilizers and holds the necessary licence. On 03.01.2015
- 4 -
the complainant visited the business premises of the
petitioners No.1 and had a routine inspection and at that
juncture,
he
drew
sample
of
the
Fertilizers
called
17:17:17:N:P:K Mixture from the stock of the fertilizers 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 Chief Executive of Krishi Pattin Sahakari Sangha and
Compliance Officer, Ghataprabha Fertilizers Pvt Ltd.
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
- 5 -
which, the challenge to the cognizance order is petitioner are
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.
- 6 -
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act
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 petitione
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.