Retail Shop Owner Not Vicariously Liable For Substandard Product Of Company: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Under Insecticides Act

The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against two retail shop/showroom owners under the Insecticides Act, charged after the jurisdictional Agricultural Officer had seized substandard insecticides manufactured by a Company, from the shops of the two men. 

Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petition filed by Devanand Patil and another and said “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.”

The petitioners were charged under Sections 3(k), 13, 17 and 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 on a complaint filed by a jurisdictional Agricultural Officer. It was alleged that the insecticide which were displayed for sale in their retail shop/showroom was found to be of substandard.

The petitioners argued that petitioners are not the manufacturers of the seized insecticide nor were they aware that the said insecticide was of substandard. Therefore, they cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences.

The prosecution opposed the plea contending that seizure of insecticide was from the retail shop/showroom of the petitioners and chemical examination report from the competent Laboratory has certified that the seized insecticide was of substandard quality. Therefore, the alleged offences get attracted even as against the petitioners.

Findings

Referring to Section 33 of the Act the bench said “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.”

It noted that under sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Insecticides Act, certain protection is given to a person not being an importer or a manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for the distribution.

The bench held “If the analogy that every person, who has even stocked substandard insecticide is liable to be prosecuted for the alleged offence is accepted, then even the purchasers of the insecticide from the retail shop/showroom may have to face the prosecution in a given case and therefore, such an analogy cannot be accepted.”

Justice Shetty further said that the doctrine of mens rea is the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence which means having a guilty mind or intention. The court said that the lack of such allegations or ingredients negates the entire situation in any given case.

It further said said, “In the case on hand, 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 is 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 is 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.”

It added “Petitioners are not the importers of the seized insecticide. Petitioners have produced copies of valid licence issued to them to stock or exhibit for sale of insecticides. There is no allegation against the petitioners that they were indulged in sale of insecticide which were not registered under the Act or prohibited under Section 27 of the Act and therefore, Sections 17 or 18 of the Act, cannot be invoked against them. There is no such allegation in the complaint that petitioners had not stored the insecticide properly in their showroom/retail shop.”

Thus it held “I am of the view that if respondent is allowed to prosecute the petitioners for the alleged offences, the same would amount to abuse of process of law and therefore, the impugned proceedings is liable to be quashed as against the petitioners.”

Case Title: Devanand Patil & ANR AND State of Karnataka

Appearance: Advocate Avinash A Uplaonkar for Petitioners.

HCGP Veerangouda Malipatil for Respondent.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 70

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200937 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order