AJITKUMAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11732
CRL.P No. 200871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030067582026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200871 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
AJITKUMAR S/O. ADINATH DHANSHETTI,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND
M/S. A.J. DHANASHETTI AND CO.,
NEAR MAHAVEER CIRCLE, STATION ROAD,
INDI, TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI MANJUNATH S. CHOWDARY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
THROUGH ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
FERTILIZER INSPECTOR, ADA OFFICE, INDI,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHAHABUDDIN JAMADAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS OF
C.C.NO.29/2026 (PCR.NO.02/2023), FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3 AND 7 OF ESSENTIAL
COMMODITIES ACT, 1955, PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT INDI, AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11732
CRL.P No. 200871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030067582026
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
Heard Sri.Manjunath S.Chowdary., learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri.Shahabuddin Jamadar, learned
HCGP for respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023/482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the entire
proceedings in C.C.No.29/2026 arising out of PCR
No.2/2023, pending on the file of learned Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Indi insofar as petitioner-accused No.1 is
concerned, for the alleged violation of Rule 19(A) and (B)
of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 read with Section 3
and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
3. The factual matrix of the complainant’s case is
that on 23.08.2021, the respondent i.e., the Assistant
Director of Agriculture and Fertilizer Inspector, Indi,
conducted an inspection at the dealer outlet of M/s. A.J.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11732
CRL.P No. 200871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030067582026
Dhanashetti & Co. located in Indi taluk, and collected
samples of ‘Mono Ammonia Phosphate’ fertilizer, which
were allegedly manufactured by M/s. Vanitha Agrochem
(India) Private Limited. The samples were sent to Fertilizer
Control Laboratory, Dharwad, for analysis. The analysis
report issued by the Fertilizer Control Laboratory,
Dharwad, wherein it is opined that the sample did not
conform to the prescribed specification and failed in
nutrient content. Accordingly, on 24.09.2021, the
respondent issued notice to the dealer viz. accused No.1
informing them that the fertilizer collected from their
premises were found to be non-standard. Thus, the
respondent replied to the notice seeking re-analysis of the
samples in question. Based on the request of the dealer,
samples were forwarded to Fertilizer Control Laboratory,
Uttar Pradesh for re-analysis. The re-analysis report stated
that the sample is not according to specification. Thus, the
respondent initiated private complaint under Section 200
of Cr.P.C. in PCR No.2/2023 against accused Nos.1 and 2
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11732
CRL.P No. 200871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030067582026
alleging involvement in the sale and manufacture of sub-
standard fertilizers in violation of Clause-19(A) and (B) of
Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 read with Sections 3 and 7
of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
4. The Trial Court, after receipt of the complaint,
took cognizance of the alleged offences. Taking exception
to the same, accused No.1 has filed this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the petitioner is innocent and he has not
committed the alleged offences. It is further contended
that the petitioner is the owner of the company and he is
nowhere connected to the alleged incident. The samples
were collected from sealed boxes and hence, absolutely
there are no specific allegations against the petitioner
regarding his responsibility for the alleged adulteration or
the sub-standard fertilizer contained in the stitched bags.
Moreover, as per Annexure-D the company has appointed
a Responsible Officer by name Prashant Ramachandra
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11732
CRL.P No. 200871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030067582026
Taware. When such being the case, accused No.1 being
the owner of the company is not liable for any act. Hence,
learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the
petition.
6. Learned HCGP contended that there are prima-
facie materials to show that the petitioner has committed
the alleged offences and the company is not made as
accused as required under Section 10 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955. Hence, learned HCGP prayed to
reject the petition.
7. Perused the material available on record and
considered the rival submissions of both sides.
8. Perusal of the record reveals that on
23.08.2021, respondent - the Assistant Director of
Agriculture and Fertilizer Inspector, Indi, had conducted an
inspection at the dealer outlet of M/s. A.J. Dhanashetti &
Co., located in Indi taluk, and collected samples of ‘Mono
Ammonia Phosphate’ fertilizer which were allegedly
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11732
CRL.P No. 200871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030067582026
manufactured by M/s. Vanitha Agrochem (India) Private
Limited. As per the analysis report, the sample is not
according to specification and fails in nutrient content and
sub-standard. Accordingly, notices were issued to accused
No.1. In turn, accused No.1 requested the authorities to
re-analyze the samples. Thus, the samples were sent to
Fertilizers Control Laboratory, Uttar Pradesh for re-
analysis. The re-analysis report also indicates that the
sample did not conform to the prescribed specifications
forming the basis for the alleged offences.
9. On perusal of the entire complaint, it is evident
that there is no specific allegation made against the
petitioner as to how he was responsible for the
adulteration of the fertilizer or for the sub-standard quality
of the fertilizers contained in the stitched bags.
10. In the case of Sanjay Gowda vs. State of
Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.7408/2015 disposed of
on 04.08.2016 , the Co-ordinate bench of this Court held
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11732
CRL.P No. 200871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030067582026
that “ as per the Government Order issued by the
Department of Agriculture which requires appointment of
an officer for compliance of Fertilizer Control Order under
every company manufacturing fertilizers and when such
officer is named, it is only against such officer that any
violation of law under the said provisions could be carried
forward and not against any other officers of the company
or its Managing Director .”
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the company has passed resolution, fixing the
responsibility on compliance officer of the company viz .
Prashanth Ramchandra Taware vide Annexure-D who is
the responsible officer appointed under clause-24 of FCO,
1985.
12. Insofar as the contention of learned HCGP for
non-inclusion of company under Section 10 of E.C. Act,
1955 is concerned, learned HCGP contended that the
company is not arrayed as an accused in the complaint.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11732
CRL.P No. 200871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030067582026
In similar circumstances, the co-ordinate bench of this
court in Crl.P.No.102651/2022 disposed of on 14.09.2022
has held as under:
“ 8. Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act,
1955, deals with the offence by Companies and it
reads as follows:
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 subsection
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 subsection
(1), where en 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.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11732
CRL.P No. 200871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030067582026
9. Perusal of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955 makes it evident that wherever
contravention is by a Company, then 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.
Therefore, petitioner is being made liable on account
of he being an employee of Company in question and
therefore, until and unless the company is arraigned
as accused, the petitioner cannot be held
responsible.
10. In fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Aneeta Hada
Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited while
considering the offence committed by the company
has held as follows:
"53. It is to be borne in mind that Section 141 of
the Act is concerned with the offences by the
company. It makes the other persons vicariously
liable for commission of an offence on the part of
the company. As has been stated by us earlier, the
vicarious liability gets attracted when the condition
precedent laid down in Section 141 of the Act
stands satisfied. There can be no dispute that as
the liability is penal in nature, a strict construction
of the provision would be necessitous and, in a
way, the warrant.
56. We have referred to the aforesaid passages
only to highlight that there has to be strict
observance of the provisions regard being had to
the legislative intendment because it deals with
penal provisions and a penalty is not to be
imposed affecting the rights of persons, whether
juristic entities or individuals, unless they are
arrayed as accused. It is to be kept in mind that
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11732
CRL.P No. 200871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030067582026
the power of punishment is vested in the
legislature and that is absolute in Section 141 of
the Act which clearly speaks of commission of
offence by the company. The learned counsel for
the respondents have vehemently urged that the
use of the term "as well as" in the section is of
immense significance and, in its tentacle, it brings
in the company as well as the Director and/or
other officers who are responsible for the acts of
the company and, therefore, a prosecution against
the Directors or other officers is tenable even if the
company is not arraigned as an accused. The
words "as well as" have to be understood in the
context.
59. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at
the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the
prosecution under Section 141 of the Act,
arraigning of a company as an accused is
imperative. The other categories of offenders can
only be brought in the drag- net on the touchstone
of vicarious liability as the same has been
stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the
basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh [(1970)
3 SCC 491: 1971 SCC (Cri) 97) which is a three-
Judge Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in
Sheoratan Agarwal [(1984) 4 SCC 352: 1984 SCC
(Cri) 620] does not correctly lay down the law and,
accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in
Anil Hada [(2000) 1 SCC 1: 2001 SCC (Cri) 174] is
overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51.
The decision in Modi Distillery [(1987) 3 SCC 684:
1987 SCC (Cri) 632] has to be treated to be
restricted to its own facts as has been explained
by us hereinabove."
13. In the light of the above facts and
circumstances of the case and the decision cited supra , the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11732
CRL.P No. 200871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030067582026
Court arrives at irresistible conclusion that for maintaining
the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act arraigning of
a company as an accused is imperative. Therefore, there is
no ground in the contention of learned HCGP. Therefore,
continuation of case against accused No.1 will be abuse of
process of law. Hence, the Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
The Criminal Petition is allowed .
The entire proceedings in C.C.No.29/2026 arising out
of PCR No.2/2023, pending on the file of learned Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Indi insofar as petitioner – accused
No.1 is hereby quashed.
Pending I.A.s, if any, stand disposed of as the same
do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
AM/-
CT-AN
List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3