Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 527 (TS)

Bobbala Ravinder Reddy v. State of Telangana

2025-04-30

JUVVADI SRIDEVI

body2025
ORDER : JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.543 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Peddapalli (for short ‘trial Court’). The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 420 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’) and Section 29(1)(e) of Insecticide Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Heard Ms. Rubaiana S.Khatoon, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the record. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant, who is the Mandal Agriculture Officer, has lodged a complaint stating that as per the instructions of the Government of Telangana, to curb the supply of spurious and banned seeds in Telangana State, they were conducting regular checking at all fertilizer shops and suspected places with the help of Police. On 17.06.2021, while they were conducting check at Sabitham Village, at about 12.00 noon, the Police stopped a person namely Reddy Narsaiah. On checking, it was found that he was in possession of 10 Chilli seed packets of US-341 which is Nunhems BASF Company, which were restricted in Telangana as per the Company norms. He was also found in possession of 50 packets of Meenal Chilli Seeds belongs to the same Company which are allowed to sell in Telangana State as per the Company norms. On enquiry, he confessed that he purchased the same from accused No.1, who is the owner of the Srinivasa Fertilizers, Gadampalli, for Rs.4,200/-. The said bill was found to be unauthorized. He further confessed that he is not aware that the said US-341 Chilli seeds are not permitted to be sold in Telangana State and making him believe that the seeds are permitted in Telangana State, accused No.1 has sold the same to him. 4. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.142 of 2021 was registered against the accused. During the course of investigation, it was found that accused No.1 contacted accused No.2, who is the Sales Officer of BASF Nunhems Company for purchasing US-341 prohibited seeds to sell the same to the innocent farmers and to gain illegal profits. 4. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.142 of 2021 was registered against the accused. During the course of investigation, it was found that accused No.1 contacted accused No.2, who is the Sales Officer of BASF Nunhems Company for purchasing US-341 prohibited seeds to sell the same to the innocent farmers and to gain illegal profits. Upon which, accused No.2 informed him that they cannot be sold in Telangana and asked accused No.1 to contact accused No.3, who is the Owner of R.K. Seeds and Fertilizers, Etapaka, which is situated between the borders of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, accused No.1 contacted accused No.3 and accused No.3, by preparing the bills in the names of some farmers has delivered the prohibited seeds to accused No.1. The investigation further revealed that accused No.1 is purchasing Glycel and Excel Mera-71, which contains Glyphosate from the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5, who are the Sales Officer and Regional Business Manager of Sumitomo Chemicals and selling the same to the innocent farmers for higher price. Glyphosate is used to get rid of waste plants/weeds in Cotton and Mirchi (Chilli) crops. Sale of Glyphosate is banned in the State of Telangana. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial Court. The same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.543 of 2021. 5. Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners: 5.1. The petitioners are innocent and have nothing to do with the offences alleged against them. The petitioners herein are the employees of the Sumitomo Chemical India Limited, a corporate entity registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The said Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, importing and marketing products for crop protection, grain fumigation, bio-pesticides, pest control, etc. for use in India and it has obtained a valid manufacturing license. The petitioners herein have sold Glyphosate after proper registration and after obtaining necessary permission from the Government of Telangana. 5.2. To initiate criminal proceedings against the accused under Section 188 of IPC , the complainant has to file a private complaint as contemplated under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. and the Court cannot take cognizance, unless a public servant concerned files a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. In the present case, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant before the Police. In the present case, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant before the Police. Hence, the same is not maintainable. 5.3. The de facto complainant has mainly placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.239, dated 05.05.2021 issued by the Agriculture Department, Government of Telangana, stating that the Glyphosate was banned. However, as per the said G.O., the product was not banned and it merely restricts the use of herbicide formulations of Glyphosate. On the basis of G.O.Ms.No.239, dated 05.05.2021, the Commissioner of Agriculture, Telangana, issued a Memo, dated 25.05.2021 stating that the Government has issued orders duly imposing restriction on usage of Glyphosate formulations; instructed all the Directors of Agriculture and Department of Agriculture to inspect the premises of dealers/stock companies to verify stocks of Glyphosate formulations and further to issue stop sale notice for the said stock. Accordingly, on 29.05.2021, the Insecticides Inspector visited the premises of godown of Sumitomo Chemicals India Limited and inspected the stock. Pursuant to inspection, the Insecticides Inspector has made an endorsement stating that the Glyphosate stock found was ‘nil’ and issued stop sale notice for Glyphosate stocks available, till the restriction period. 5.4. G.O.Ms.No.239, dated 05.05.2021 is not within the public knowledge. The petitioners came to know about the same when the inspection was conducted on 29.05.2021. The said G.O., dated 05.05.2021 has not been published in the official State Gazette, therefore, it does not have any force in law. As such, the de facto complainant ought not have initiated any action against the petitioners herein relying on the said G.O. The invoices clearly reflect that the sale was conducted only from 12.05.2021 to 17.05.2021. No sale was conducted pursuant to the stop sale notice issued by the Insecticide Inspector. 5.5. The Industry Association has challenged the said G.O. before this Court by filing W.P.No.17778 of 2021 and vide order, dated 26.08.2021, this Court has granted stay of execution of said G.O. When the said G.O. which imposes restriction on the sale of Glyphosate itself was suspended, the question of prosecuting the petitioners basing on the said G.O. does not arise. 5.6. 5.6. It is not the case of the de facto complainant that the petitioners herein have sold the Glyphosate at a higher price than MRP printed on the package to gain more profits, hence, the question of attracting Section 420 of IPC does not arise. 5.7. The de facto complainant has also invoked the provisions of Section 29(1)(e) of the Act. Neither a case of poisoning as required under Section 26 of the Act was reported nor the product Glyphosate has been prohibited for sale by the Central Government under Section 27 of the Act, Section 29(1)(e) of the Act is not made out. 5.8. As per Section 31 of the Act, no prosecution can be initiated under the Act without the written consent of the State Government or a designated person, and no Court below the level of a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the First Class can try such offences. Under Section 33 of the Companies Act, 1968, the person who was incharge of or was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company, as well as the Company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. In the instant case, neither any written consent for initiating prosecution against the petitioners was obtained nor was the Company made as an accused. Hence, no liability can be vicariously fastened on the petitioners, without the Company being arrayed as an accused and in the absence of specific allegations being made against them. 5.9. She relied on the judgment of S.C.Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , [ 2025 INSC 493 ] and drawn attention of this Court to paragraph No.23, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: 23. Similarly in the matter of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 2248] , this Court has held that a person cannot be vicariously prosecuted, especially for offences under the IPC , merely on account of the fact that he holds a managerial position in a company without there being specific allegations regarding his involvement in the offence. The following has been held in paras 13 and 14: “13. This Court has time and again reminded that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. The following has been held in paras 13 and 14: “13. This Court has time and again reminded that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. [See: Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 ]. 14. Where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind. The Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of appellants Nos.2 and 3, respectively herein who are none other than office bearers of the appellant No.1 Company. When appellant No.1 is the Company and it is alleged that the company has committed the offence then there is no question of attributing vicarious liability to the office bearers of the Company so far as the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust is concerned. The office bearers could be arrayed as accused only if direct allegations are levelled against them. In other words, the complainant has to demonstrate that he has been cheated on account of criminal breach of trust or cheating or deception practised by the office-bearers. The Magistrate failed to pose unto himself the correct question viz. The office bearers could be arrayed as accused only if direct allegations are levelled against them. In other words, the complainant has to demonstrate that he has been cheated on account of criminal breach of trust or cheating or deception practised by the office-bearers. The Magistrate failed to pose unto himself the correct question viz. as to whether the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that appellants Nos. 2 and 3 herein were personally liable for any offence. The appellant No. 1 is a body corporate. Vicarious liability of the office bearers would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. Statutes indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. Even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability.” 5.10. In fact, the present complaint was filed for selling chilli seeds which is banned by Government of Telangana. The petitioners herein in no manner deal or engage in sale of chilli seeds. The allegation against the petitioners that they have indulged in sale of prohibited Glyphosate is incorrect. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the ingredients of offences alleged against them are not made out. Since the offence under Section 188 of IPC is barred by Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. 6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5. All the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. For better adjudication of the matter, Section 188 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder. 188. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. For better adjudication of the matter, Section 188 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder. 188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant — Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes to tender to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Courts shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive)of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii)of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate... (b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii)of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or sub-clause (ii). 8. According to Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C., under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC , a complaint in writing should be given by a concerned public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. As per Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., a "complaint" means an allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with the intention of initiating action under the Code, that a person, known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. 9. Having gone through the record, it clearly depicts that there was no complaint in writing by the de facto complainant, who was an official of Agriculture Department against the petitioners herein before the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging the offence under Section 188 of IPC . On the other hand, she has filed a complaint before the jurisdictional Police for investigation. The registration of a case by the Police under Section 188 of IPC itself is illegal. On the date of registration of case itself, the bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. was operating and the Police has no jurisdiction even to register a case under Section 188 of IPC . Once an illegality perpetrates into the investigation, such investigation is hit by the statutory principles, then it cannot be construed as a legal proceeding or a legal investigation by the Police. 10. Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines “complaint” as allegations made orally or in writing to the Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action on such complaint under the Code. 10. Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines “complaint” as allegations made orally or in writing to the Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action on such complaint under the Code. Only on such complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the procedure prescribed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has to be followed. In the present case, though there is a bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C., the Police after conducting investigation have filed charge sheet before the trial Court and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate, which is contrary to law. Therefore, the First Information Report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance on such charge sheet are without jurisdiction and the same are liable to be quashed. 11. As seen from the record, it is evident that G.O.Ms.No.239, dated 05.05.2021 was issued by the Government of Telangana imposing restriction on sale of Glyphosate, but not ban as is stated by the de facto complainant. The execution of said G.O. was suspended by this Court. As per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said G.O. was not published in the official State Gazette and this Court has granted stay of execution of said G.O., as such, the question of prosecuting the petitioners does not arise. The said G.O. is not within the public knowledge and the petitioners came to know about the same when the inspection was conducted on 29.05.2021. After conducting inspection, the Insecticides Inspector has made an endorsement stating that the Glyphosate stock found in the Company of petitioners was ‘nil’ and he has issued stop sale notice for Glyphosate stocks available, till restriction period as per the Act. Accordingly, when the Glyphosate stock found in the Company is nil, the petitioners selling the same after the date of inspection cannot be believed. No material was produced by the prosecution to prove the same. 12. In the instant case, neither written consent as required under Section 31 of the Act for initiating prosecution against the petitioners was obtained nor was the Company made as an accused as per Section 33 of the Companies Act, 1968, hence, no liability can be vicariously fastened on the petitioners herein. 12. In the instant case, neither written consent as required under Section 31 of the Act for initiating prosecution against the petitioners was obtained nor was the Company made as an accused as per Section 33 of the Companies Act, 1968, hence, no liability can be vicariously fastened on the petitioners herein. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners regarding their involvement in the commission of offence and the de facto complainant has not made any requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability, hence, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.C.Garg’s judgment (supra). 13. It is pertinent to note that not even a single case of poisoning as provided under Section 26 of the Act was reported and as there is no material to prove that the petitioners herein have indulged in any sale of prohibited insecticides as provided under Section 27 of the Act, Section 29(1)(e) of the Act is not made out against the petitioners. As there is no specific allegation against the petitioners that they have sold the Glyphosate at a higher price than MRP printed on the package to gain more profits and to prove the same, no material is produced by the prosecution, Section 420 of IPC is also not made out. 14. Apart from that, in the judgment of State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy , [ AIR 1981 SC 1417 ] , at Paragraph No.8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld”. 15. 15. Reading of the above judgment makes it clear that if the offences form part of same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C, then it is not possible to split up and hold that prosecution of the accused for the other offences should be upheld. 16. In the present case, since one of the offences alleged against the petitioners is Section 188 of IPC and the same cannot be taken of cognizance by the Court as per Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. the consequent alleged offences, which formed part of the same transaction are not possible to split up to hold the prosecution of the petitioners and cannot be given roof in the same crime. 17. For the foregoing discussion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 amounts to abuse of process of the law and the same are liable to be quashed. 18. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 in C.C.No.543 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Peddapalli, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.