MR VASANT KUMAR GARELA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17652
CRL.P No.101787 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020130142023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101787 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)


BETWEEN:

MR. VASANT KUMAR GARELA
S/O. GARELA SATHAIAH,
AGED 40 YEARS,
R/O. SALARPURIA KNOWLEDGE CITY,
TH
ARGUS BUILDING, 8 FLOOR, UNIT-02 (PART),
PARCEL-2, SERILINGAMPALLY MANDAL,
RAIDURGAM VILLAGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT,
HYDERABAD, TELENGANA-500081.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAKSHIT RAVINDRA, ADV. FOR
SRI VINAYAK S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)









AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR CUM
AGRICULTURE OFFICER C/O. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF AGRICULTURE, BAILHONGAL REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF DHARWAD, DHARWAD-580011.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN C.C.NO.681/2019 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT BAILHONGAL,
AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED VIDE ORDER
DATED 30.08.2019 AT ANNEXURE-A , ARISING OUT OF COMPLAINT
IN C.C.NO.681/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE U/S.29(1)(a) OF
INSECTICIDE ACT, 1968 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, AT BAILHONGAL, IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:



Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17652
CRL.P No.101787 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020130142023


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri. Rakshit Ravindra, learned counsel for
petitioner and Sri. Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned High
Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3
under Section 482 of CrPC (Section 528 of BNSS, 2023)
seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.681/2019
pending on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,
Bailhongal, registered for the offence under Section 29(1)(a) of
Insecide Act, 1968.


3. The brief facts of the prosecution case in nutshell
are as under:
Accused No.1 is the Proprietor of M/s. Soubhagya
Lakshmi Trading Company (‘Firm’ for short). He is in charge
and responsible for conduct of business of the firm and the said
firm is carrying on the business of retailer in insecticide and is
holding a retailer license. The misbranded insecticides in
question were sold by accused No.1. Accused No.2 is the

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17652
CRL.P No.101787 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020130142023


Proprietor of M/s. Halapanavar Agro Chemicals Narvekar Galli,
Belagavi and it is the distributor/supplier of misbranded
insecticide in question to accused No.1. Accused No.3/
petitioner herein is the compliance officer of Insecticide
Manufacturing Company i.e., Bayer Crop Science Limited,
Hyderabad. On 17.05.2018 at 11:00 a.m., the complainant had
visited the shop of accused No.1, inspected the articles and
collected samples of insecticide, namely SOLOMON under
Mahazar. Further, as per the report of Insecticide Analyst, First
Coding Officer-cum-Deputy Director of Agriculture State
Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Dharwad and later came to know
that the sample was found to misbranded under the provisions
of ISA. The copy of the report of analyst was forwarded to the
accused persons. Accused No.1 and 3 had requested the
defacto complainant for re-analysis of the sample and
thereafter, re-analysis was done at Additional Plant Protection
Advisor at Faridabad, Haryana and once again the sample was
concluded to be misbranded. Accordingly, the re-analysis report
was sent to accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 along with notice on
04.07.2018. Though accused No.1 had replied and accused

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17652
CRL.P No.101787 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020130142023


No.2 and 3 did not reply to the notice, the defacto complainant
lodged the complaint.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the
grounds urged in the petition, contended that the prosecution
has failed to comply the required statutory provisions and
therefore, continuation of proceedings before the Trial Court is
nothing but abuse of process of law and sought for quashing of
pending proceedings before the learned Magistrate. In support
of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the
judgments passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Criminal Petition No.100487/2023 and Criminal Petition
No.101933/2022.


5. Learned HCGP, however, contended that it is a
matter of trial and non-impleading the company who
manufacture the pesticides does not vitiate the launched
criminal prosecution and that itself would not be considered as
a factor which favour the petitioner in the trial and sought for
dismissal of the petition.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17652
CRL.P No.101787 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020130142023



6. This Court perused the material on record
meticulously.


7. Admittedly, the prosecution did not comply the
statutory requirement in arraigning the company which
manufactured the pesticides. In this regard, Section 10 of
Essential Commodities Act, 1968 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 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

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17652
CRL.P No.101787 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020130142023


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.—For the purposes of
this section,—
(a) “company’’ means any body corporate, and
includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
(b) “director’’ in relation to a firm means a partner
in the firm."


8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
provisions of Section 33 of Insecticide Act, is akin to Section 10
of Essential Commodities Act and therefore, in respect of an
offence said to have been committed by a company, in the
absence of company being arraigned as a party accused,
proceedings initiated by the prosecution only against in its
individual capacity is impermissible.


9. In order to appreciate the same, it is necessary to
call out Section 33 of Insecticide Act, which reads as under:
“ 33. Offences by companies.— (1) Whenever an
offence under this Act has been committed by a
company, every person who at the time the offence was

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17652
CRL.P No.101787 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020130142023


committed was in charge of, or 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 offence 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 under this Act if he proves that the offence
was committed without his knowledge or that he
exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of
such offence.
(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.—For the purpose of this section:—
(a) “company” means any body corporate and
includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
(b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a
partner in the firm.”

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17652
CRL.P No.101787 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020130142023



10. On perusal of the same, there is sufficient force in
the arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner.


11. This Court in the case of Mallikarjun S/o.
Girimallappa Shegunashi Vs. The State of Karnataka passed in
Criminal Petition No.101933/2022 dated 20.07.2022 has clearly
held that such prosecution cannot be proceeded further in the
absence of company being arraigned as additional accused.


12. Accordingly, the criminal prosecution with regard to
the petitioner/accused herein cannot be allowed to be
continued as it results in abuse of process of law. Hence, the
following order is passed:
ORDER
allowed
Criminal petition is .
The entire proceedings in C.C.No.681/2019 pending on
the file of learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bailhongal
insofar as the petitioner/accused No.3 is concerned are hereby
quashed.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17652
CRL.P No.101787 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020130142023


However, the defacto complainant is at liberty to cure the
defects by impleading the company as party to the petition
subject to the point of limitation.
Pending IAs., if any, stands disposed of.

Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE




CLK /CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10