Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. (a seed producer), its Deputy Manager (Legal) M.M. Chavan, and Senior Manager (SDM) Anil Kolte, challenged the order of issue process passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parner, District Ahmednagar in S.T.C. No.55/2003. The criminal case was filed by the Seed Inspector of the State Government against the petitioners and four other accused for offences punishable under Section 6(b) read with Section 7 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Seeds Rules, 1968. The complaint alleged that the seeds sold by the company were not of the prescribed quality. The petitioners contended that the complaint did not contain any specific averments that petitioners No.2 and 3 were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of the alleged offence. The court examined the complaint and found that there were no allegations that the petitioners were responsible for the conduct of the business. The court held that vicarious liability cannot be imposed on officers without specific averments of their role. The court allowed the petition, quashed the order of issue process, and set aside the proceedings in S.T.C. No.55/2003 against the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability - Seeds Act, 1966, Sections 6(b) and 7 - Issue of Process - The court considered whether officers of a seed company can be held vicariously liable for offences under the Seeds Act without specific averments that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence. Held that mere designation as Deputy Manager (Legal) or Senior Manager (SDM) without specific allegations of their role is insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings. (Paras 1-5)
B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC - Abuse of Process - The court examined the power to quash proceedings where the complaint lacks essential ingredients to constitute the offence against the accused. Held that where the complaint does not disclose any offence against the petitioners, the proceedings are liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order issuing process against the petitioners (officers of a seed company) for offences under the Seeds Act, 1966 can be sustained in the absence of specific allegations regarding their role and responsibility in the conduct of the company's business.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order of issue process made by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parner, District Ahmednagar in S.T.C. No.55/2003 is quashed and set aside. The proceeding of S.T.C. No.55/2003 is quashed and set aside against the petitioners.
Law Points
- Vicarious liability
- Criminal liability of company officers
- Seeds Act 1966
- Section 6(b)
- Section 7
- Seeds Rules 1968
- Issue of process
- Quashing of criminal proceedings
- Articles 14
- 19(1)(g)
- 21
- 226
- 227 of Constitution
- Section 482 CrPC
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (04) 65
Criminal Writ Petition No.517 of 2003
Joydeep Chatterji (holding for N.K. Choudhari) for petitioners, R.V. Dasalkar (Additional Public Prosecutor) for respondent No.1
M/s Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd., M.M. Chavan, Anil Damodhar Kolte
State of Maharashtra, M/s Prithvi Agro Services, Chaburao Kisanrao Haral, M/s Kamdhenu Agro Agencies, Annasaheb Madhavrao Sonawale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition under Articles 14, 21, 19(1)(g), 226, 227 of Constitution and Section 482 CrPC challenging order of issue process and seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Seeds Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of order of issue process and setting aside of proceedings in S.T.C. No.55/2003.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were aggrieved by the order of issue process passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parner, District Ahmednagar in S.T.C. No.55/2003 for offences under Section 6(b) read with Section 7 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and Seeds Rules, 1968.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parner had issued process against the petitioners in S.T.C. No.55/2003.
Issues
Whether the order issuing process against the petitioners can be sustained in the absence of specific allegations regarding their role and responsibility in the conduct of the company's business.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the complaint did not contain any specific averments that petitioners No.2 and 3 were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of the alleged offence.
Respondent No.1 (State) opposed the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
Vicarious criminal liability cannot be imposed on officers of a company under the Seeds Act, 1966 without specific averments in the complaint that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the alleged offence. The absence of such allegations renders the complaint devoid of essential ingredients, and the proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.
Judgment Excerpts
The petition is filed under Articles 14, 21, 19(1)(g), 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for challenging the order of issue process made by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parner, District Ahmednagar in S.T.C. No.55/2003 and also for quashing and setting aside the proceeding of S.T.C. No.55/2003.
Criminal Case No.55/23003 is filed by Seed Inspector of the State Government against present petitioners and four other accused for offences punishable under section 6(b) read with section 7 of the Seeds Act 1966 and under Seeds Rules 1968.
Procedural History
The Seed Inspector filed a criminal complaint (S.T.C. No.55/2003) before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parner, District Ahmednagar against the petitioners and four other accused for offences under the Seeds Act, 1966. The Magistrate issued process against the petitioners. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present criminal writ petition under Articles 14, 21, 19(1)(g), 226, 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) challenging the order of issue process and seeking quashing of the proceedings.
Acts & Sections
- Seeds Act, 1966: 6(b), 7
- Seeds Rules, 1968:
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
- Constitution of India: 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 226, 227
