BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a fertiliser dealer from Bagalkot, ruling that selling sealed fertiliser products later found to be substandard does not automatically make a dealer criminally liable without evidence of individual responsibility for the quality failure.
Justice T. Venkatesh Naik of the High Court’s Dharwad Bench passed the order on a petition filed by Allahbaksh M. Makandar, who challenged criminal proceedings pending before the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) court in Bagalkot.
The court observed that the complaint did not contain specific allegations establishing that Makandar was involved in manufacturing the fertiliser or was responsible for quality control. It held that prosecution could not be justified merely because he had sold products in sealed packages.
Criminal liability must be linked to individual responsibility
The High Court emphasised that criminal liability must be assessed based on the role and responsibilities of the person concerned. A dealer who sells sealed fertiliser products cannot automatically be held responsible for quality deficiencies when there is no allegation that the dealer manufactured the products or altered their composition.
The Bench noted that proceedings under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, should be directed against individuals whose responsibilities and involvement in the alleged violations can be established.
This may include manufacturers and persons specifically authorised to oversee compliance and quality control. However, simply being a dealer or an official associated with a company is not sufficient grounds for prosecution without establishing individual responsibility.
Finding that the allegations did not demonstrate Makandar’s involvement in the alleged violation, the court concluded that continuing the criminal case against him would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It accordingly quashed the proceedings against him.
The order relates specifically to Makandar and does not, by itself, establish the outcome of proceedings against the other accused.
Case began after fertiliser inspection in Bagalkot
The case originated on October 22, 2021, when Lakshman S. Kallennavar, fertiliser inspector for Bagalkot district and Joint Director of the Agriculture Department, inspected Shabaz Agro Centre at Shirur.
During the inspection, officials collected samples of liquid multi-micronutrient mixtures and Bio-Max foliar spray tonic fertiliser products stocked at the establishment.
The samples were sent to a laboratory to determine whether they met the prescribed quality standards. The laboratory report, issued on November 18, 2021, found that the samples did not conform to the required standards.
Following the report, a criminal case was registered against the manufacturing companies and Makandar, who was named as the third accused.
Prosecution invoked Essential Commodities Act
The case was registered under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Rules 19 and 21 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985.
The trial court took cognisance of the matter and initiated proceedings. Makandar subsequently approached the High Court, arguing that the allegations did not establish any direct responsibility on his part for the quality of the products.
After examining the complaint, the High Court found that it did not explain how Makandar had contributed to the manufacture of the substandard fertiliser or was otherwise responsible for the reported deficiencies.
Ruling clarifies the distinction between dealers and manufacturers
The decision underscores the distinction between selling a product and being responsible for its manufacture or quality control. While fertiliser quality regulations provide for action against violations, criminal proceedings must also establish the connection between the alleged violation and the person being prosecuted.
The ruling does not remove manufacturers or other responsible persons from the scope of applicable laws. Instead, it highlights the need for specific allegations and evidence linking an accused individual to the alleged offence.
By quashing the proceedings against Makandar, the Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that criminal prosecution cannot rest solely on a person’s status as a dealer when the complaint does not establish individual responsibility for the alleged quality failure.