Karnataka High Court
Shri Neelesh S/O Memaraj Thakkar vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4008
CRL.P No. 101169 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101169 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. NEELESH S/O. MEMARAJ THAKKAR
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF MAHARASHTRA
BIOFERTILIZERS INDIA PVT LTD.,
R/AT. PLOT NO.66, APMC YARD,
AMARGOL HUBBALLI-580025.
2. SHRI. KUSHAL S/O. NEELESH THAKKAR
MAHARSHTRA BIOFERTILIZERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,
R/AT. PLOT NO.66, APMC YARD,
AMARGOL, HUBBALLI-580025.
3. SHRI. IRANNA S.H
MAHARSHTRA BIOFERTILIZERS INDIA PVT LTD.,
R/AT. PLOT NO.66, APMC YARD,
AMARGOL HUBBALLI-580025.
4. MAHARASHTRA BIOFERTILIZERS INDIA PVT LTD.,
R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SHRI. NEELESH S/O. HEMARAJ THAKKAR,
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA R/AT. PLOT NO.66, APMC YARD,
KALMATH
AMARGOL HUBBALLI-580025.
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.03.03 12:58:47
+0530
5. SHRI. NEELESH S/O. HEMARAJ THAKKAR
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF MAHARASHTRA,
BIOFERTILIZERS INDIA PVT LTD.,
R/AT. NEAR UDYOG BHAVAN,
SHIVAJI NAGAR LATUR, MAHARASHTRA-413512.
6. SHRI. KUSHAL S/O. NEELESH THAKKAR
MAHARASHTRA BIOFERTILIZERS INDIA PVT LTD.,
R/AT. NEAR UDYOG BHAVAN, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
LATUR, MAHARASHTRA-413512.
7. MAHARASHTRA BIOFERTILIZERS INDIA PVT LTD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4008
CRL.P No. 101169 of 2025
R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
R/AT NEAR UDYOG BHAVAN,
SHIVAJI NAGAR LATUR, MAHARASHTRA-413512.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HIRANKUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE OFFICER/INSPECTOR OF
LEGAL METROLOGY, ILM HUBLI 2,
APMC YARD, HUBBALLI-580025,
NOW REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SE. 482 OF CR.P.C.
(U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH COGNIZANCE
DATED 23.02.2023 AND FURTHER PROCEEDING IN C.C.NO.
845/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, AT HUBBALLI AGAINST ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 7/
PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 15 OF LEGAL
METROLOGY ACT 2009.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice
for the respondent/State.
2. The petitioners, who are facing trial for the offence
punishable under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, are
before this Court seeking relief.
3. The respondent filed a private complaint alleging that
certain prepackaged packets bottle parakite non-selective contact
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4008
CRL.P No. 101169 of 2025
herbicide (MBF), on which net content 1 ltr marked did not have the
prescribed declarations as provided under Legal Metrology Rules-
2011.
4. The issue involved in this petition as to whether the
petitioners can be prosecuted without passing an order under
Section 36(1) of the Act, was examined by this Court in
Crl.P.No.102378/2022. This Court vide order dated 31.10.2022
quashed the proceedings therein by observing as under:
The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal
Petition No.100585/2020, at paragraph 10, has held as
follows:
“10. In terms of sub clause (1) of section 50, remedy of
appeal is also available to an offender from any decision
taken on the reply for the offences punishable under Section
27 to 39 of the Act. As stated hereinabove, the alleged
offence is under Section 31 and 36 of the Act and the
aforesaid remedies are available to the petitioners. The
respondent without passing an order straight away registers
a complaint setting the criminal law into motion. By the act
of the respondent in registering the criminal case without
passing an order under the provision of law, aforequoted
i.e., section 48 and 50 are rendered nugatory. The right of
the petitioners are taken away by such act of the
respondent. This Court in the case of Ms. Shalini K. vs. The
Inspector of Legal Metrology and another, in
W.P.No.51116/2017 (GM-RES) and connected cases, while
considering an identical provision has held as follows:
Compounding of offences is a remedy that is
available once offences punishable under Sections 27
to 39 of the Act are alleged against any accused. A
remedy of appeal is also available to an accused for
any order passed under Sections 15 to 20, 22, 25, 27 to
39 and 41 of the Act or any Rule made thereunder.
Therefore, the dual remedy that is available once an
offence is alleged is that, one can compound the
offence and the other, to file an appeal against an order
that would be passed. The petitioners in these cases
were in fact summoned to compound the offences
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4008
CRL.P No. 101169 of 2025though no order was passed either accepting the reply
or rejecting it. Therefore, in the light of the remedy of
appeal being available in terms of Section 50 of the Act,
once offences are alleged against the petitioner under
Sections 28, 29 and 31 of the Act, it was obligatory on
the part of the respondents to have passed an order, for
the petitioners to avail the remedy of filing an appeal
under Section 50 of the Act, as the offences alleged are
of offences against which an appeal under Section 50 of
the Act would encompass. By not passing an order on
the reply given to the notice/show cause notice by the
petitioners, it has rendered the remedy of appeal under
Section 50 of the Act as illusory or superfluous. Silence
on the part of the respondents cannot be construed to
be an order that can be passed, which would become
applicable under Section 50 of the Act. The order must
be in writing for the petitioners to avail of the remedy of
appeal under Section 50 of the Act. It is a liberty
granted to the petitioners and the like under the Act;
availing of it or not, is the choice of the petitioners but
passing an order either accepting the reply or rejecting
it, is an obligation on the part of the State performing its
functions under the Act. It is only after an order being
passed by the Appellate Authority either rejecting or
allowing the appeal, registration of a criminal case can
take place. Admittedly, no order considering the reply of
the petitioners is passed in these cases and as such,
the petitions deserve to succeed in part and the matter
has to be remitted to the hands of the respondents to
act in accordance with law.”
5. Hence, this petition also requires to be disposed off in
terms of order passed in Crl.P.No.102378/2022. Accordingly, the
petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.845/2023
on the file of learned III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Hubballi, insofar as the petitioners are quashed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
JTR
Ct:vh
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39
[ad_1]
Source link