Telangana High Court
Bobbala Ravinder Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 30 April, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5995 of 2022
ORDER:
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
2
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. 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
3
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
4
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. 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
5
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.
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
7
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 1 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. 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 liability1
2025 INSC 493
8on 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. 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
9
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. 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
10
(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
11
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. 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.
12
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.
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
13
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 2, 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”.
2
AIR 1981 SC 1417
14
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.
15
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
___________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 30.04.2025
rev
