Essential Commodities Act prosecution of company officers requires arraigning the company as an accused.

The petitioners sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 813/2021, arising from a private complaint alleging an offence under Section 19(3) of the Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985, read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The complaint alleged that a fertilizer sample collected from petitioner No. 2’s shop was found, on laboratory testing, not to conform to specifications.

The petitioners argued, among other things, that the company had not been made an accused; the State contended that it could be added later under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Petitioner No. 1’s residence in Mumbai and the jurisdictional court’s alleged failure to proceed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. were also raised.

1. Whether proceedings against the petitioners could continue when the company allegedly responsible for the contravention had not been arraigned as an accused.

2. Whether the omission to arraign the company warranted quashing the pending proceedings against the petitioners.

Section 10(1) of the Essential Commodities Act provides for liability of both a company and persons who, at the relevant time, were in charge of and responsible for its business; Section 10(2) addresses liability of officers where the offence is attributable to their consent, connivance, or neglect.

The Court referred to Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd., (2000) 1 SCC 1, Dayle De Souza v. Government of India, SLP (CrL) No. 3913 of 2020, and M/s. Cheminova India Limited v. State of Punjab, Crl.A. No. 750/2021, and concluded that, where the alleged offence is by a company, the company must be made a party before proceedings are initiated against the other accused.

The Court found that the complaint alleged a fertilizer-related contravention but had not arraigned the company as a party.

Applying Section 10 and the cited authorities, it held that the company’s omission was material: proceedings against the petitioners, described as a responsible officer and proprietor, could not properly continue without the company being made an accused.

The Court did not separately determine the petitioners’ argument concerning Section 203 Cr.P.C.

The Court clarified that the order would not prevent the complainant from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with law, subject to limitation.