Owners Of Shops & Showrooms Can’t Be Held Vicariously Liable Under Insecticides Act For Misbranding Of Product: Karnataka HC
The Petitioners, who were arraigned as accused in a case registered under the Insecticides Act, 1968, sought quashing of the entire proceedings against them.
The Karnataka High Court quashed the proceedings under the Insecticides Act, 1968 initiated against the owners of a showroom/retail shop and observed that the petitioners being the owners of the shop/showroom, in which products of the Company were stocked/exhibited for sale, cannot be held vicariously liable for misbranding of the product in respect of which they were not involved in the manufacturing process.
The Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioners, who were arraigned as accused in a case registered under Sections 3(k), 13, 17 and 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 seeking quashing of the entire proceedings against them.
The Single Bench of Justice S.Vishwajith Shetty said, “For the purpose of initiating the criminal proceedings against accused, prosecution is primarily required to show that the said accused had mens rea to commit the offence. Doctrine of mens rea is the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence. It means having a guilty mind or intention. Lack of such allegations or ingredients negates the entire situation in any given case.”
Advocate Y Sri Avinash A. Uplaonkar represented the Petitioners while HCGP Y Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
A private complaint was filed by the jurisdictional Agricultural Officer alleging that during the course of the inspection, it was found that the insecticides which were displayed for sale in the retail shop/showroom of the accused persons manufactured by another accused Company (not a petitoner herein) were found to be of substandard quality. The sample of the said insecticide was forwarded for chemical examination. It was mentioned in the report that the sample was of substandard quality and therefore, a complaint was filed before the jurisdictional Court to prosecute and punish the accused persons. The Trial Court took cognizance of the alleged offences and issued summons to the accused. Aggrieved thereby, the accused Nos.1 and 2 approached the High Court.
Reasoning
It was noticed by the Bench that accused Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of the showroom/retail shop in which substandard insecticide manufactured by accused No.3/Company was stored/displayed for sale. On a perusal of the provisions of the Insecticides Act, the Bench explained that Section 13 provides for the grant of licence for manufacturing, selling, exhibiting for sale or distributing any insecticide and the said provision is not a penal provision. Section 17 of the Act, prohibits import and manufacture of certain insecticides. Violation of Section 13 and Section 17 of the Act is punishable under Section 29 which provides for offences and punishment.
The Bench further asserted, “From a reading of Section 33 of the Act, it is apparent that only responsible officers of the Company, who have a role in the conduct of business of the Company can be arraigned as accused along with the Company and not all employees of the Company can be arraigned as accused to face trial for the offences punishable under Section 29 of the Act. Section 30 of the Act provides for certain defences available to accused, who are prosecuted for the offences under the Act.”
Reliance was also placed upon Section 30(3) of the Act, which provides certain protection to a person not being an importer or a manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for the distribution thereof, provided he proves that he comes within the clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 30. On a perusal of the averments made in the private complaint, the Bench noted that there was no such allegation against the petitioners that they had contravened any one of the clauses under Sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Act.
“For the purpose of prosecuting a person for the offences punishable under the Act, the prosecution is primarily required to show that the accused was either aware of the quality and contents of the product or that he had control as regards quality and contents of the product manufactured by the company”, the Bench said.
Coming to the fact of the case, the Bench noticed that the sample was seized from sealed covers from the bags in which the insecticide manufactured by accused No.3/company was stocked/exhibited for sale by accused Nos.1 and 2 in their retail shop/showroom. It was not in dispute that the petitioners were not responsible for the quality or contents of the product manufactured by accused No.3/Company and there was no such allegation in the complaint that petitioners had stocked or displayed the product of the Company knowing very well that the said product was of substandard quality.
“Petitioners being the owners of the shop/showroom, in which products of the Company was stocked/exhibited for sale, cannot be held vicariously liable and be penalized for misbranding of the product in respect of which they were not involved in the manufacturing process. Petitioners are not the importers of the seized insecticide. Petitioners have produced copy of valid licence issued to them to stock or exhibit for sale of insecticides”, it further added.
Thus, in light of such aspects and considering the fact that there was no such allegation in the complaint that petitioners had not stored the insecticide properly in their showroom/retail shop, the Bench quashed the proceedings against them.
Cause Title: Devanand & Anr. v. The State Of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-K:750)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Y Sri Avinash A. Uplaonkar
Respondents: HCGP Y Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil
