Back
S. G. MEHARE
Anil Agrawal Director of M/s. Bunge Agri Business India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The applicants have filed present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the prosecution/complaint of the respondent against the applicants and the process issued by the Court for an offence under Section 7(1) read with Sections 2(ia) and 2(ia)(m) punishable under Sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, “the Act”).
2. The applicants are the Directors of the Company. M/s Bunge Agri Business India Ltd is engaged in the manufacturing of vanaspati, margarine, butter, etc. The company is duly registered under the Companies Act.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that there were no averments in the Complaint that the applicants were in charge and responsible for the business of the company. In the absence of such averment or evidence as required under Section 17 of the Act, no vicarious liability could be fastened on the Directors. Section 17 of the Act provides that when the offence is committed by the company, only the person in charge and responsible for the business of the company can be prosecuted. Nothing was there bef
Directors can be held vicariously liable for company offenses under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act if they are responsible for the company's conduct, and delays in prosecution do not automat....
The court confirmed the conviction based on compliance with food safety regulations, determining specific procedural requirements were mandatory, while others were directory, influencing the admissib....
The failure to comply with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, vitiates the trial and denies the accused a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence against them.
Food Inspector having taken steps to proceed against distiller, accused is entitled to take defence provided by Section 19(2) (b). It is not case of prosecution that accused did not properly store fo....
The discretion of the Commissioner of Food Safety to approve prosecution beyond one year under Section 77 and the liability of directors under Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Prosecution is deemed instituted upon filing a complaint, distinct from court cognizance; thus, failure to apply for sample analysis timely negates reliance on sample condition.
The court reaffirmed that non-compliance with statutory provisions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act can lead to acquittal, emphasizing the accused's rights to challenge the prosecution's....
Compliance with mandatory sampling protocols is crucial under food safety laws; lapses in procedure undermine prosecution's burden of proof, potentially leading to acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that statutory provisions must be strictly interpreted, and non-compliance with procedural requirements may not necessarily invalidate the prosecut....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
