Point of Law : Section 17(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act make it abundantly clear that when an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is committed by a company, which has nominated any person to be in charge of or responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, it is the nominated person who shall be proceeded against and punished for commission of offence.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Legality Propriety and correctness of the order dated 11.08.2016, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, in C.R. Case No. 1200/2001, is challenged in this revision petition under Sections 379/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution India by seven petitioners. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned order dated 11.08.2016, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, has dismissed the petition, filed by the petitioners, for discharging them from the case, on the ground that the matter of discharge in a warrant procedure case, instituted otherwise then on police report, is governed by Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case is still in the appearance stage and hence, the petition is pre-mature for consideration, and directed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against petitioner Nos. 2 to 7.

2. The factual background, leading to filing of the present revision petition, under Sections 397/401 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is adumbrated herein-below:

“On 27.09.2021, Shri H.C. Kalita, Food Inspector, Kamrup, Guwahati, inspected M/S K.S. Oil Sales Deptt., R.K. Hour Market, T.R.P. Road, Fancy Bazar and collected sample of Mustard Oil of 375 ml of Big Bull Brand from a sealed tin containing 15 Kgs, which was stored for sale, from one Ashok Kumar Rai, Vendor. Thereafter, on 28.09.2001, the Food Inspector has sent the sample of Mustard Oil for analysis. Thereafter, the Public Analyst, Assam, opined that the sample does not conform to the standards and hence, adulterated, vide its report dated 01.11.2001. Thereafter, the Food Inspector has instituted C. R. Case No. 1200/2001 against the Company, viz. petitioner No. 1- M/S. K. S. Oil Ltd., and the Directors, viz. petitioner No. 2- Shri Kishore Kumar Garg, petitioner No. 3- Shri Omprakash Garg, petitioner No. 4- Shri Mohanlal Garg, petitioner No. 5- Ramesh Garg, petitioner No. 6- Shri Gobinda Garg, and petitioner No. 7- Shri Gopal Garg, to stand trial in the Court for commission of the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling and storing of sale of adulterated Mustard Oil (Big Bull Brand), on 11.09.2021, at A.T. Road Maligaon, Guwahati. Thereafter, taking cognizance upon the said complaint, the learned Court below has issued process to the accused Nos. 1 to 7 of the said complaint. Thereafter, the petitioners filed one petition before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 29.07.2014, under Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, to delete/discharge the name of the Directors, i.e. the petitioner Nos. 2 to 7, who are not responsible for the said offence in view of the fact that there is a person responsible nominated under Section 17(2) of the said Act. Thereafter, hearing learned Advocates of both sides, the learned Court below, vide impugned order, dated 11.08.2016, had dismissed the petition.”

3. Heard Ms. S. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondents.

4. Ms. S. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order, dated 11.08.2016, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, in C.R. Case No. 2834/2001, suffers from manifest illegality and impropriety. Taking this Court through the impugned order, Ms. Chakravarty, submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate agreed to the legal provision pointed out by the learned counsel and held the same is in conformity with law, but, refused to discharge the applicants, as the stage was pre-mature to discharge the petitioners, as the case is warrant procedure and instituted otherwise then on police report, which is governed by Section 245 of the Code of criminal Procedure. Ms. Chakravarty, taking us through the page No. 32 of the pe