Karnataka HC Quashes Insecticide Prosecution Against Bayer Compliance Officer Because Manufacturer Was Not Accused; Company May Be Added Subject To Limitation

In brief

The question

1. Whether an officer of a company can be prosecuted under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act when the company itself has not been arraigned as an accused

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 681/2019 against the petitioner, accused No. 3.

It also directed

It left the de facto complainant at liberty to cure the defect by impleading the company, subject to limitation; pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of

01Facts

The petitioner, accused No. 3, was the compliance officer of Bayer Crop Science Limited, the manufacturer of the insecticide “SOLOMON.” Following inspection and sampling at a retailer’s shop, the sample was reported as misbranded, including after re-analysis.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 2–3

The complainant filed a case under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, but did not arraign the manufacturer company. The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings against him under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 2–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether an officer of a company can be prosecuted under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act when the company itself has not been arraigned as an accused

pp. 6–8 · ¶ 8–10

ii.2. Whether continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner in those circumstances would amount to an abuse of process of law

p. 8 · ¶ 12

03Law Applied

Section 33(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 provides that where an offence under the Act is committed by a company, both the company and the persons in charge of, or responsible for, its business may be proceeded against; Section 33(2) also addresses liability of officers where the offence is attributable to their consent, connivance, or neglect

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 9

The Court relied on *Mallikarjun S/o Girimallappa Shegunashi v. State of Karnataka*, Criminal Petition No. 101933/2022, which held that such prosecution cannot proceed in the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused

p. 8 · ¶ 11

The judgment also sets out Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1968, but its application of the company-liability principle rests on Section 33 of the Insecticides Act

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7–9

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Insecticides Act, 1968 Section 29 Section 33

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Section 10

04Reasoning

The prosecution alleged that the misbranded insecticide was manufactured by Bayer Crop Science Limited and sought to prosecute the petitioner in his capacity as the company’s compliance officer.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 9–12

Applying Section 33 and the principle in *Mallikarjun*, the Court held that the company’s absence as an accused precluded continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner. It therefore considered continuation of the proceedings against him an abuse of process of law

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 9–12

05Holding

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 681/2019 against the petitioner, accused No. 3.

p. 8 · ¶ 12 · p. 9, order

It left the de facto complainant at liberty to cure the defect by impleading the company, subject to limitation; pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of

p. 8 · ¶ 12 · p. 9, order

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF