Back
2008(3) Crimes 266 (Ker.)
KERALA HIGH COURT
V.K. Mohanan, J.
Saly Paul—Petitioner
versus
Food Inspector—Respondent
Criminal M.C. No. 156 of 2004
Decided on 14.12.2007
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. K.P. Dandapani, Sr. Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.M. Kammappu, Public Prosecutor.
IMPORTANT POINT
When there is a nomination and the company commits an offence under the Act, the nominee has to be proceeded against, he being the person in-charge of and responsible to company for conduct of business.
Headnote:(i) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954—Sections 16(1)(a)(i) r/w 7(i)(v), 2 (1a)(c) and Rule 5 Appendix B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955—Prosecution of petitioners for sale of coriander not confirming to standards prescribed under PFA Act and rules—Petition there against for quashment of proceedings on plea that Annexure B report of public analyst not disclosed anything to show that food item subjected for chemical analysis was not in accordance with standard prescribed as per rule and Appendix B—Held perusal of Annexure B chemical analysis report of public analyst showed that report not contained details of standards required to be shown in chemical analysis report—In absence of those details it could not be said whether sample item was adulterated or whether it tallied with standard prescribed in the Rules and Appendix—No justification in directing petitioners accused to undergo ordeal of trial in absence of details in Annexure B necessary to constitute offences as alleged—Complaint and proceedings against petitioners held liable to be quashed. (Para 5)
(ii) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954—Sections 16(1)(a)(i) r/w 7 (i)(v), 2 (1a)(c) and Rule 5 Appendix B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955—Prosecution of petitioners for sale of coriander not confirming to standards prescribed under PFA Act and rules—Petition there against for quashment of proceedings on plea that petitioner 5 company already having nominated petitioner 4 in terms of 17(2) of Act, prosecution could not be launched against petitioners 1 to 3 directors of company—Held no allegation in Annexure-A complaint that alleged offence was committed with consent or connivance of a particular director, or manager, secretary or other officer of company or on account of negligence of any one or more of them—When there is a nomination and the company commits an offence under the Act, the nominee has to be proceeded against, he being the person in-charge of and responsible to company for conduct of business—Instantly company had already made a nomination under Section 17(2) —Hence in absence of material allegation with particulars in terms of Section 17(4), complaint against petitioners 1 to 3 held not sustainable. (Para 6 to 8)
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER
V.K. Mohanan, J. —Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.1873/2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Changanacherry for the offences punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section7(i)(v), Section 2(1a)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 5 Appendix B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred to for short ‘the Act and Rules’). According to the petitioners, going by Annexure-A Charge Sheet and Annexure-B Report of the Public Analyst, no offence is disclosed against them and the petitioners 1 to 3 who are the Directors of the 5th petitioner company are not liable to be prosecuted in the light of Section 17(2) of the above Act. Thus, the petitioners seek an order to quash Annexure-A complaint and all further proceedings thereon.
2. Annexure-A is the complaint filed by the Food Inspector-1st respondent herein, in which the allegation is that on 9.9.2002, at about 2.30 p.m. he had inspected the 5th petitioner factory, in the presence of witnesses and fully in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law and after given notice in form No. VI to 1st accused and demanded 450 grams of Coriander, an article of human food, kept for sale in a gunny bag of 50 kg. The article so purchased was sampled as per mahazar and subsequently the same was sent to the Public Analyst, Ernakulam for report. Thereafter the complainant received Annexure-B report from the Public Analyst and according to the said report, the sample coriander does not conform to the standards prescribed for coriander under the PFA Act 1955 and therefore adulterated.
3. It is further alleged that thereafter statutory formalities were adopted so as to collect the details of the licence etc. Thus according to the complainant, a letter was sent to the District Food Inspector, Kottayam requesting to intimate the nomination details of the 5th petitioner company. It is averred that the District Food Inspector, Kottayam informed the complainant that the 5th petitioner company has no valid nomination. According to the complainant, on further enquiry, he understood that the Chairman and Managing Directors and the Directors are responsible for the day to day administration and conduct of business of the company under the provisions of the PFA Act and Rules and thus, according to the complainant, the Directors of the company were included in the array of accused. Thus, according to the complainant, accused No.1 had sold adulterated Coriander for and on behalf of accused Nos.2 to 4 to the complainant Food Inspector and therefore all are liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of the PFA Act and Rules. Thus according to the complainant, the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 16(1) (a)(i) read with Section 7(i)(v), S.2(la)(c) of the PFA Act, 1954 and Rule 5 Appendix-B item No.A.05.08 CORIANDER (Dhania) WHOLE of PFA Rules 1955. Thus he lodged Annexure-A complaint on the basis of which the court below took cognizance and instituted C.C.813/03. The petitioner approached this Court stating that Annexure B Report of the Public Analyst does not disclose anything to show that the food item which subjected for chemical analysis is not in accordance with the standard prescribed as per Rules and Appendix. It is also averred that accused Nos. I to 3 are the Directors of the 5th petitioner company and the company has already nominated petitioner No. 4 in terms of Section 17(2) of the Act and therefore no prosecution can be launched against the petitioners 1 to 3 and therefore, the very filing of the complaint itself and all proceedings thereon against the petitioners 1 to 3 will amount to abuse of process of court and therefore on that ground also they prayed to quash Annexure-A complaint.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the crux of the allegation
