Back
2017 Supreme(Guj) 898
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
B.N. Karia, J.
Samirbhai S. Vora - Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application (for Quashing & Set Aside FIR/Order) No. 372 of 2014
Decided On : 02-05-2017
For the Appellant :Sudhir I. Nanavati, Learned Senior Advocate and Anuja S. Nanavati, Advocate.
For the Respondents: K.P. Raval, APP.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure – Section 482 – Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Brief facts of case – Complainant visited Super Market managed by India Limit –Present at place – Disclosed his identity as a Manager of firm – Upon inspection complainant found registration – Found that packing of were kept for sale – Accused stated rate of each pack and on each of packing, mark and packed by Retail Limited, Prasad – Printed and on each of packing stickers – While making clarification regarding – accused stated that it was a code for counting price in computer and various code numbers were given for various weight of and till it is not being change, it remains as it is and there being no concern with packing made from separate stock of peanuts was not the batch number –Held, Case of India Holdings Private Limited v. Food Inspector reported - Complaint was lodged under Section 17 – PFA Act, as a food adulteration offences was committed by Company – Supreme Court was pleased to hold that facts are required to be pleaded in complaint regarding individual liability of a Director – While role of a Director in management of a Company, makes him liable – Particular Manager was named under Section 17 as a person responsible for ensuring prevention of adulteration, other Directors could not be prosecuted – Apex Court further held that a person was Director of a Company, against which, certain allegations had been made is not sufficient to make such Director liable, in absence of any specific allegations regarding his role in management of Company –.Petition is allowed.
B.N. Karia, J.
1. The applicant-accused No. 2 has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {"CrPC" for brevity} for quashing and setting aside the complaint, being Criminal Case No. 9066 of 2007 registered with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar for the offence punishable under Sections 7(2), 7(3) and 16(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 {"PFA Act" for brevity}.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.08.2006 at about 13.45 o'clock, the complainant visited Adani Super Market managed by B2C India Limited with one Shri T.V. Makwana. At that time, the accused No. 1 was present at the place and he disclosed his identity as a Manager of the firm. Upon inspection, the complainant found registration certificate No. 5409 dated 09.05.2005 of the firm in the name of Shri Samir Vora, and while making inquiry, it was found that packing of desi 'Moongdal' of 500 gram were kept for sale. The accused No. 1 stated the rate of each pack to be at Rs. 23.50 and on each of packing, mark of "Adani Veg" and packed by "Adani Retail Limited, Prasad Complex, Opp. Jain Derasar, Nehrungar Circle, Ambavadi Ahmedabad, 380015" was printed and on each of the packing stickers "Adani's 21754", "Moong Dal" Deshi-500 g. Net Wt. M.R.P. Rs. 23.50 (incl of all taxes) Pkd-14-08-2006, Best Before 13.10.06 was written and while making clarification regarding 21754, the accused No. 1 stated that it was a code for counting the price in the computer and various code numbers were given for various weight of 'deshi moongdal' and till it is not being change, it remains as it is and there being no concern with packing made from the separate stock of moongdal, and therefore, that was not the batch number.
3. That thereafter, the complainant seized the samples after following due process of law and after declaring the sample as misbranded, the permission of local health authority was sought for lodging a complaint before the Court and after getting permission on 28.02.2007, the impugned complaint came to be lodged before the court concerned against various accused persons; including the present applicant.
4. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Sudhir I. Nanavati with Ms. Anuja S. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned APP Mr. K.P. Raval appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
5. Learned senior advocate Mr. Sudhir I. Nanavati appearing on behalf of the applicant has argued that the applicant is unnecessary arraigned as an accused for his being a Director of M/s. B2C India Limited and also a Director in Adani Retail Limited. The retail chain of stores was incorporated on 7th July, 2000 and was being managed by a limited company viz., B2C India Limited. That, vide resolution dated 18.10.2005 passed by the said Company in terms of Section 21 of the Companies Act, the name of the said Company was changed from B2C India Limited to Adani Retail Limited. That, in view of such change in the name, fresh certificate in name of the Company came to be issued on 21st October, 2005. Prior to that, the Company was acting and operating in the name and style of B2C India Limited and it had nominated Mr. Parag S. Padrakar as Officer-in-charge and responsible for the Company's day-to-day activities for the entire State of Gujarat under the provisions contained in Section 17 read with Rule 12B by submitting Form VIII dated 15.02.2005. Accordingly, said Mr. Parag S. Padrakar is duly nominated officer of the Company for the State of Gujarat for its activities falling within purview of the PFA Act. The Company is not manufacturer of the said sample goods. There is no direct allegation and/or role attributed against the present applicant in the complaint, or no specific averment is there to show as to how the applicant was directly responsible for and/or involved in the manufacture/purchase/sale of the said sample, and therefore, cognizance taken thereon is without prope
