Court Rules Dealer Not Responsible for Quality of Sealed Fertilizer Bags, Directs Action Only Against Company's Compliance Officers
In a significant judgment delivered on September 28, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad bench, quashed criminal proceedings against Shri Allabhaksha M. Makandar, a fertilizer dealer, in a case involving substandard fertilizers. The case arose from a complaint under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1985, where samples of fertilizers seized from the petitioner's shop were found substandard upon laboratory analysis.
The complaint was lodged after the defacto complainant visited the petitioner's shop on October 22, 2021, and collected fertilizer samples from sealed bags. The laboratory report, dated November 18, 2021, confirmed that the samples did not conform to the prescribed specifications. Consequently, charges were framed against the manufacturing company (accused Nos. 1 and 2) and the petitioner, who was the dealer/stockist (accused No. 3).
However, the petitioner challenged the proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (analogous to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.), contending that as a mere dealer and supplier, he had no control over or responsibility for the production or quality of the fertilizers. Importantly, the fertilizers were seized in sealed bags, and no specific allegations of adulteration or substandard quality were levelled directly against him.
The Court examined the complaint, the laboratory report, and submissions of the parties. It noted the absence of any direct allegation tying the dealer to the manufacture or adulteration of the substandard fertilizers. The Court relied on the precedent set by the Karnataka High Court in Sanjay Gowda v. State of Karnataka (2016), which held that when a company manufacturing fertilizers appoints a responsible or compliance officer, prosecution for violations under the Fertilizers (Control) Order should be confined to such officers, not other company officials or unrelated persons.
In the present case, the companies accused had appointed specific responsible officers: Sri C.W. Mandanna, Marketing Manager (Karnataka) for T Stanes and Company Limited, and Sri Shreedhar Girennavar as the responsible officer for Biotech Private Limited. The Court held that the prosecution should be directed against these officers rather than the dealer.
Consequently, the Court held that continuing proceedings against Shri Allabhaksha M. Makandar would constitute an abuse of process of law. It allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.4550/2025 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkote.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that dealers or stockists who sell sealed fertilizers cannot be held criminally liable for substandard quality unless there are specific allegations implicating them in adulteration or quality control failures. It places the onus on manufacturing companies and their designated responsible officers to ensure compliance with statutory quality standards.
Bottom Line:
Essential Commodities Act and Fertilizers (Control) Order - Proceedings against dealer quashed - Mere dealer/stockist cannot be prosecuted for substandard fertilizer found in sealed bags in absence of specific allegations regarding production, adulteration, or responsibility for quality - Where company has appointed responsible/compliance officer, prosecution should proceed against such responsible officer.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Sections 3, 7, Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1985 Orders 19, 21
