Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 1924
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
Ashutosh Bhailal Rao, Director of M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. – Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Application No. 2019 of 2006
Decided On : 11-12-2017
For the Applicant : Mr. K.H. Parekh.
For the Respondent: Mr. K.S. Patil.
Vicarious liability must be supported by evidence of the accused's responsibility for the company's day-to-day business, and the timeliness of prosecution is crucial in upholding the accused's rights.
Headnote:
Food Adulteration - Prosecution under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 7(i) r/w Section 2(i-a) (a), 2(i-a) (m) punishable under Sections 16 and 17
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, as Directors of a company, were accused of selling adulterated Mustard oil. The complaint alleged that the accused committed offenses under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no mention of the applicants' involvement in the complaint, and the prosecution failed to establish vicarious liability. Additionally, the delay in filing the complaint nullified the accused's right to challenge the report of Public Analyst.
Issues: The issues revolved around the vicarious liability of the applicants and the timeliness of the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that vicarious liability must be substantiated with evidence of the accused's responsibility for the company's day-to-day business. The delay in filing the complaint nullified the accused's right to challenge the report of Public Analyst.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the proceedings against the applicants.
PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing and setting aside the prosecution initiated by the respondent against the applicants. The criminal proceedings, which are sought to be challenged are pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Navapur, District Nandurbar. The process was issued by the Court for offences under Sections 7(i) r/w Section 2(i-a) (a), 2(i-a) (m) punishable under Sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (For the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred as the Act).
2. The applicants are the Directors of the company M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. The said company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of edible oils. The company is duly registered under the Companies Act.
3. The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are as follows:
(a) The complaint was filed by the Food Inspector, Food and Drug Administration, Dhule. The applicants are impleaded as accused Nos. 5 to 10 in the complaint being Directors of M/s. Ruchi Soyal Industries Ltd. The accused No. 1 and 2 are Partners of M/s. Mahaveer Sons, Navapur. Accused No. 3 is M/s. Mahaveer Sons situated at Navapur, District Nandurbar. Accused No. 4 is proprietor of M/s. Shri Balaji Agency having its office at Jyoti Commercial Complex, Nandurbar. Accused No. 11 is a Firm namely M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited and accused Nos. 12, 13 and 14 are nominees of accused No. 11. Accused No. 15 is a Firm having office at Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
(b) Accused No. 1, who is the partner of M/s. Mahaveer Sons was present at the time of sampling as a vendor. Accused No. 3 is a Firm dealing with food articles. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the partners of accused No. 3. Accused No. 4 is a Firm, who had supplied Mustard Oil (Mandap Brand) to the Firm of Accused No. 3. Accused No. 4 has purchased the said Mustard Oil (Mandap Brand) from accused No. 11 vide Invoice dated 19.6.2004 and accused No. 13 is a Firm, who has marketed said Mustard Oil (Mandap Brand) and accused No. 12 is the nominee of accused No. 13. Accused No. 15 is the manufacturing Firm, who had manufactured and supplied Mustard Oil (Mandap Brand) to the Firm of accused No. 11 vide Invoice dated 16.5.2004. Accused No. 14 is the nominee of accused No. 15.
(c) On 16.9.2004, the complainant along with independent witness and the Assistant Commissioner visited the shop premises of M/s. Mahaveer Sons, Light Bazar, Navapur, District Nandurbar. Accused No. 1 was present in the premises as a vendor and partner, who is managing the business of Firm and selling food article namely pure Mustard Oil (Mandap Brand) Ruchis in 500 ml pack bottle. There was stock of 12 bottles of Mustard Oil, which was having label as manufactured by Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., and marketed by Ruchi Soya Industrial Ltd. Food Inspector, Mr. Joshi disclosed his identity and intention of drawing the samples for testing and analysis to accused No. 1. Mr. Joshi demanded and purchased three packs and sealed bottles of 500 ml Mustard Oil (Mandap Brand) for testing and analysis from accused No. 1. The sample of food article was also drawn. A notice in the Form VI was given to accused No. 1 intimating that samples are drawn for testing and analysis. It is signed by accused No. 1, Pancha and Food Inspector. Notice under Section 14A was also served on accused No. 1 to disclose the source of product.
(d) The sealed bottles of Mustard Oil were taken for analysis. After completing the requisite procedure, the Panchnama was prepared at the spot, which is signed by the complainant, Pancha and accused No. 1.
(e) On 17.9.2004, one part of the sample was forwarded alongwith Memorandum in Form VII in a sealed packet to the Public Analyst, State Public Health Laboratory, Pune, by registered Post. The complainant also forwarded separately the copy of Form VII and specimen impression of seal used to seal the sample to the Public Analyst on 17.9.2004. The
