SMT. NEELAMMA W/O MANJAPPA NAGENAHALLI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17093
CRL.P No. 100609 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020050902026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100609 OF 2026
[482(Cr.P.C)/528(BNSS)]
BETWEEN:
SMT. NEELAMMA
W/O MANJAPPA NAGENAHALLI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS-OWNER OF KB SEEDS,
RANEBENNUR,
RESIDING OF: CHALAGERI.
NOW AT KB SEEDS, OPPOSITE FOREST OFFICE,
KB RAOD, RANEBENNUR TALUK: RANEBENNUR,
DISTRICT: HAVERI - 581 115.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD,
THROUGH RANEBENNUR TOWN CIRCLE
POLICE STATION, RANEBENNUR
DISTRICT: HAVERI - 581 115.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17093
CRL.P No. 100609 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020050902026
2. SHANTAMANI G.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: GOVT. OFFICIAL GAZETTED,
RESIDING OF: RANEBENNUR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
AGRICULTURE,
DISTRICT: HAVERI - 581 115.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING TO
QUASHED THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASE
NO.3184 OF 2025 (RANEBENNUR TOWN POLICE STATION CRIME
NO.0148 OF 2025) PENDING ON THE FILLING OF THE II ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFC, RANEBENNUR REGISERED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 318 OF BNS, 2023 AND
SEED CONTROL ORDER 1983 SECTION 3(1) AND CONDITION NO.2,
SEED ACT 1966, SECTION 6(A) AND 6(B) OF THE SEED RULE 1968
AND SEED ORDER ACT 8(A) AND SECTION 3 AND 7 OF ESSENTIAL
COMMODITIES ACT, INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONER
(ACCUSED NO.4) IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER
ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17093
CRL.P No. 100609 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020050902026
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.4 has filed this petition seeking
to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No.3184 of 2025
pending on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil
Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ranebennur,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7
of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 318 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3(1) and condition
No.2 of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, Section 6(a) and 6(b)
of the Seeds Act, 1966, and Rule 8(a) of the Seeds Rules,
1968.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
The petitioner and others allegedly sold maize seeds,
purportedly intended for cultivation to farmers in the months of
May and June 2025 in the districts of Haveri, Davanagere,
Chitradurga, Ballari, Gadag and Vijayanagara. However, the
seeds failed to yield any crop, resulting in loss to the farmers.
Based on the same, the respondent-Police registered a case for
the aforesaid offences. The Investigating Officer investigated
the matter and subsequently filed the charge-sheet.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17093
CRL.P No. 100609 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020050902026
3. Taking exception to filing of the charge-sheet, the
petitioner has filed this petition.
4. Heard Sri Girish A. Yadawad, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
case and has not committed any offence. The petitioner is
merely a retailer of seeds who purchases seeds from various
seed manufacturing entities and sells them to agriculturists.
The petitioner has no control over the quality of the seeds
manufactured by the manufacturers and, therefore, cannot be
prosecuted in the present criminal proceedings. He further
contended that the complaint itself alleges that the
manufacturers of the seeds caused loss to the agriculturists by
supplying substandard seeds. The petitioner received sealed
seed bags from various manufacturers and sold them to
agriculturists, without having any occasion to verify the quality
of the seeds. Hence, the provisions of Section 318 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3(1) and condition
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17093
CRL.P No. 100609 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020050902026
No.2 of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, Section 6(a) and 6(b)
of the Seeds Act, 1966, and Rule 8(a) of the Seeds Rules,
1968, are not applicable to the petitioner. Hence, he prayed to
allow the petition.
6. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment
rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal
Petition No.101598 of 2025 disposed of on 11.01.2019.
Per contra
7. , the learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent No.1-State has contended that the petitioner
sold the seeds through his shop to various farmers and that the
seeds failed to yield any crop, resulting in substantial loss to
the agriculturists. Aggrieved by the loss sustained, the farmers
protested against the petitioner and others, pursuant to which
the complaint came to be lodged. Now, the petitioner is
disputing the factual allegations, which cannot be examined by
this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Hence, he
prayed to dismiss the petition.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17093
CRL.P No. 100609 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020050902026
8. Upon perusal of the material available on record, it
appears that the petitioner, being a retailer, sold maize seeds
of the variety mentioned in the charge-sheet. The Investigating
Officer has recorded the statements of the witnesses,
particularly CWs.17 to 57, who are agriculturists. They have
clearly stated that they purchased maize seeds from the
petitioner's shop and sustained loss as the seeds failed to yield
the expected crop.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contended that the petitioner is only a retailer and had no
occasion to open the sealed bags and verify the quality of the
seeds. It is further contended that, at the most, the
manufacturer of the seeds ought to be held liable for the loss
sustained by the agriculturists. However, the material on record
indicates that the petitioner sold the seeds to several
agriculturists, who allegedly sustained substantial losses. The
question as to whether the petitioner, being a retailer, can be
held liable for the alleged offences, having regard to the nature
of the allegations and the material collected during the
investigation, requires consideration in accordance with law.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17093
CRL.P No. 100609 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020050902026
The petitioner is disputing the factual allegations, and the same
cannot be adjudicated by this Court in the present proceedings
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no merit in
dismissed
the petition. Accordingly, the petition is .
In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KVK /CT-SL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8