THE HEAD TRICOM ARGO PVT LTD vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18351
CRL.P No. 104504 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020230302025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH


CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104504 OF 2025

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:


1. THE HEAD, TRICOM ARGO PVT. LTD.,


A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT

REPRESENTED BY:

PRABHANANADA KUMAR

WORKING AS REGIONAL MANAGER,

KARNATAKA STATE,

LOCATED AT: TOWERS, PLOT NO.16,

Digitally
signed by
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI B
S
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
SRINIVASA NAGARA (WEST) AMMERPET,
HYDRABAD-500038.


2. ANAND KUMAR M.H. S/O. HALAPPA M.D.,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S. HULIGEMMADEVI AGRO TRADING,
RATTIHALLI,
HAVERI-581116.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18351
CRL.P No. 104504 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020230302025


AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY:
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
AND INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR,
SHRI SHIVALINGAPPA V.K.,
OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTORS
OF AGRICULTURE,
HAVERI-581 110.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDI, HCGP)
----

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO, QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED
NO.1 AND 2 IN CC NO.1041/2022 ARISING OUT OF PCR NO.37/2022
PENDING ON THE FILE OF ITINERARY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
RATTIHALLI FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 9, 13 AND 3(K),
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 29 OF INSECTICIDE ACT, 1968 AT
ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC.,.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18351
CRL.P No. 104504 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020230302025


ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)


1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking to
quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1041/2022, arising out
of PCR No.37/2022 of respondent-police, pending on the file of
the Itinerary C.J. & JMFC, RTL for the offence under Sections 9,
13 and 3(k) and 29 of the Insecticide Act, 1968.
Brief facts of the case:

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the Inspector
and Assistant Director of Agriculture, Haveri, filed a private
complaint stating that on 23.08.2022, he conducted an
inspection at a retail outlet named M/s. Huligemmadevi Agro
Trading, collected samples of an insecticide, seized the said
samples, and sent them to the Insecticide Residue Analysis
Laboratory, Agriculture Complex, for analysis. A report was
received from the said laboratory on 30.08.2022 stating that
‘the sample contained insecticides’. The Records show that on
20.09.2022, show cause notices were sent by the respondent
to Accused Nos. 1 and 2 seeking an explanation regarding the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18351
CRL.P No. 104504 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020230302025


sale of the insecticide as a plant growth stimulant. The first
petitioner submitted its reply on 30.09.2022, wherein a
reanalysis of the sample by the Central Laboratory was
requested. Thereafter, the respondent filed a private complaint
on 15.12.2022. On the basis of the private complaint, the trial
Court took cognizance on 26.12.2022, which has been
challenged before this Court.


3. Heard Sri.Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri.Praveen Y.Devareddi, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent-State.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that, the initiation of the private complaint and the
order taking cognizance are bad in law. There are no prima
facie materials made out against the petitioners to attract the
ingredients of the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968.
Furthermore, the initiation of the present prosecution is
contrary to the provisions of Section 33 of the Insecticides Act,
1968. The complainant/respondent failed to array the
manufacturing company as an accused, which is mandatory
under the law. Before taking cognizance, the trial Court ought

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18351
CRL.P No. 104504 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020230302025


to have verified whether the manufacturer of the said chemical
had been made an accused. However, the trial Court failed to
take note of this aspect and took cognizance without
application of mind; therefore, the proceedings are liable to be
quashed. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the
petition.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent-State vehemently submitted that
vehemently justified the initiation of criminal proceedings
against the petitioners, who are retailers selling the said
insecticide without a valid permit and outside the list approved
by the Central Government. The retailer, with an intention to
deceive farmers, was selling the insecticide, which led to the
deterioration of plant growth. The chemical report clearly
indicated that it contained active insecticides; such being the
case, the matter is required to be tried. During the trial, there
is a possibility of impleadment of the company as an accused;
therefore, the non-impleadment of the company at this stage is
a mere irregularity and not an illegality. Therefore, the learned

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18351
CRL.P No. 104504 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020230302025


HCGP prayed for the dismissal of the petition. Making such
submissions, he prays to reject the petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and perused the averments in the complaint, it is clear
that the complainant filed the complaint stating that the
insecticide being sold by the petitioners was not in consonance
with the license issued under the said Act. The sample sent to
the laboratory for analysis, and the report issued stated that it
contained an insecticide harmful to plants. Consequently, the
complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners.

7. However, it is relevant to refer to the provisions of
Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, which reads as under:
(Extract)

8. On reading the aforesaid provision, it is clear that
whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a
company, every person who, at the time the offence was
committed, was in charge of, or was responsible to the
company for the conduct of the business of the company, shall
be deemed to be liable for the offence. In addition to that, the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18351
CRL.P No. 104504 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020230302025


company itself is also required to be made an accused, which is
mandatory as per the said provision. The failure to array the
company as an accused is a fatal flaw to the prosecution case.
The order of taking cognizance in the absence of the company
as an accused is certainly bad in law. Therefore, the
proceedings against the petitioners are required to be quashed.

9. In the light of the aforesaid observations, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) Entire proceedings in C.C.No.1041/2022,
arising out of PCR No.37/2022 of
respondent-police, pending on the file of
the Itinerary C.J. & JMFC, RTL, for the
offence under Sections 9, 13 and 3(k)
and 29 of the Insecticide Act, 1968
pending on the file of the Itinerary Civil

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18351
CRL.P No. 104504 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020230302025


Judge and JMFC., RTL, is hereby
quashed.


Sd/-
(S.RACHAIAH)
JUDGE






JS/-
AC/CT: UMD
List No.: 19 Sl No.: 7