A fertilizer dealer cannot be prosecuted for substandard sealed-bag products without specific allegations of responsibility.

On 22 October 2021, a Fertilizer Inspector collected samples of fertilizer from the petitioner’s shop. Laboratory analysis found the samples did not conform to prescribed specifications.

A complaint was filed against the manufacturer/company and the petitioner, a dealer, under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Orders 19 and 21 of the Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1985.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 4550/2025, including the order taking cognizance and issuing process dated 9 September 2025, insofar as it concerned him.

He contended that the samples were taken from sealed bags and that he had no role in producing or controlling the quality of the fertilizer.

Whether proceedings against the petitioner-dealer could continue where the complaint contained no specific allegation that he was responsible for producing the fertilizer or its substandard quality.

Whether the proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed as an abuse of process of law.

The petition was brought under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), which provides the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Orders 19 and 21 of the Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1985.

Relying on Sanjay Gowda v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 7408 of 2015, decided on 4 August 2016, the Court noted the principle that, where responsibility for compliance with the Fertilizers (Control) Order is assigned to a designated officer, proceedings for violations should be directed against that officer rather than another company officer.

The laboratory report established that the samples did not meet prescribed specifications, but the complaint did not allege how the petitioner, who was a dealer, was responsible for their production or substandard quality; the samples had been collected from sealed bags.

The Court also considered the material identifying responsible officers for the companies and applied the reasoning in Sanjay Gowda.

In the absence of specific allegations linking the petitioner to the alleged quality violation, the Court held that he could not be held responsible merely because the fertilizer was seized from his shop.

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.