Dealer Not Responsible For Substandard Quality Of Fertilizer In Sealed Bag: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR
The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a dealer and supplier of fertiliser, observing that he was not responsible for production of “substandard quality” fertilisers contained in the sealed bags.Justice Venkatesh Naik T, while allowing the criminal petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against the supplier, placed reliance on the Sanjay Gowda v. State...
The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a dealer and supplier of fertiliser, observing that he was not responsible for production of “substandard quality” fertilisers contained in the sealed bags.
Justice Venkatesh Naik T, while allowing the criminal petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against the supplier, placed reliance on the Sanjay Gowda v. State of Karnataka (2016) ruling. In this 2016 ruling, it was held that only the officer appointed for compliance with the Fertiliser (Control) Order in a company can be proceeded against for any violation, and not any other officer of the company.
The case stemmed from the laboratory report of the sample of fertilisers— which were sent by the complainant during an inspection at the petitioner's shop. The report disclosed the seized samples were of substandard quality and did not conform with the prescribed norms. Following this, a complaint was lodged and criminal proceedings were initiated against the Accused no. 1 and 2 (company) and accused no. 3 (dealer) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Order 19 and 21 of the Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1985.
“On perusal of the entire complaint, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner/accused No.3 as to how he was responsible for the production of the fertilizers or how he was responsible for the substandard quality of the fertilizers contained in the sealed bags,” the Court said.
It further added, “In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and decision cited supra, the petitioner, being merely a dealer cannot be held responsible for the quality of fertilizers seized from his shop and thus, the proceedings now initiated against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against him pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkote.