Prosecution of individuals for offences committed by a firm or company is not maintainable unless the juristic entity (the firm or company) is also arraigned as an accused, as vicarious liability depends on the primary entity's involvement.

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 528 BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED/PETITIONERS CC NO.51/2021 ARISING OUT OF PCR NO.25/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CN HALLI, TUMAKUR FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 29 (1) OF THE INSECTICIDES ACT, 1968 AT ANNEXURE - A AND B AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer:

"(i) Quash the entire proceedings against the accused/petitioners in C.C.No.51/2021 arising out of PCR 25/2021 pending on the file of Hon'ble Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, CN Halli, Tumkur for violation of Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 at Annexure-A & B.

(ii) And grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice."

2. Heard Sri.Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Sowmya.R, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.24550/2024 disposed on 23.01.2025, wherein it has held as follows:

"This petition by the accused persons in C.C.No.447/2024 arising out of PCR No.19/2024 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Udupi, seeking quashing of the proceedings filed by the respondent against the petitioners for alleged violation of Sections 2(h), 7, 19(c) r/w 21(a) of Fertilizers (Inorganic, organic or mixed) (Control) Order, 1985.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. SPP for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the impugned complaint in order to point out that the petitioner No.1 working as responsible person at Hylyne Agencies and petitioner No.2 working as responsible officer at Aries Agro Ltd., it was incumbent upon the respondent – complainant to arraign the aforesaid proprietary firm and partnership firm as parties to the proceedings in terms of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, the ‘EC Act’).It is submitted that non arraignment of the aforesaid firms as parties in terms of Section 10 of the EC Act would vitiate the entire proceedings, which deserves to be quashed as held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Mahesh Naik Vs. The State of Karnataka – Crl.P.No.100296/2023 dated 07.02.2023.

4. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, Section 10 of the EC Act mandates that in a proceedings in relation to offence under Section 7 of the EC Act, r/w Section 19(A)(B) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, it was incumbent upon the respondent – complainant to arraign the proprietary firm and partnership firm as parties along with the petitioners to the proceedings in the absence of which the entire proceedings would be vitiated as held by this Court in Mahesh Naik’s case supra, wherein it was held as under:

“Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondent / State.

The question involved in this petition since being by a decision of this Court rendered in Crl.P.No.102651/2022 dated 14.09.2022, with the consent of both the learned counsel, petition is taken up for disposal.

The petitioner has sought to qua