ORDER :

1. The petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C.No.130 of 2019 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur, which was registered on the basis of Annexure-A3 complaint submitted by the 2nd respondent. The offences alleged are under Sections 27(1) and Section 50, 51, 3(1) (zz) (iii), (v) of Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins & Residues) Third Amendment Regulation, 2018.

2. The aforesaid complaint was submitted by the 2nd respondent against the 6th accused. The prosecution case is that, on 04.01.2019 the 2nd respondent purchased 2 Kg apple from the Supermarket run by the 6th accused company and on examination, it was revealed that the aforesaid apple contained an insecticide residue namely, ‘Fenvalerate’. The quantity of the same was 93.63 microgram/Kg which is not permitted in the apple, as per regulation 2.3 of the Food safety and Standard Regulation Amendment, 2018. The complaint was submitted in such circumstances. Petitioner is the salesman of the said supermarket, from where the aforesaid food item was purchased. This Crl.M.C.is filed challenging the aforesaid prosecution against him.

3. Heard Sri.E.Vijin Karthik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, learned Additional Director General of Prosecution for the State. One of the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner is only a salesman of the supermarket conducted by the 6th accused and he did not have any control over the purchase of the articles in question. Reliance was also placed on Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act. It is pointed out that the responsibility and culpability under Section 66 in respect of the offence committed by the companies is on the persons in charge or responsible for the conduct of the business. The petitioner is only a salesman, and he cannot be treated as a person against whom culpability can be attributed in respect of the acts of the said company.

4. After perusing the records, I find some force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The aforesaid provision reads as follows:

“66. Where an offence under this Act which has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:

Provided that where a company has different establishments or branches or different units in any establishment or branch, the concerned Head or the person in-charge of such establishment, branch, unit nominated by the company as responsible for food safety shall be liable for contravention in respect of such establishment, branch or unit:

Provided further that nothing contained in this subsection shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.”

5. From the stipulations contained in Section 66, it is evident that the responsibility is placed upon the persons who are in charge or responsible to the company for the conduct of the business thereof. It is also to be noted in this regard that, the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 66 in the Act relates to a company which has different establishments or branches or different units. It is contemplated in the said provision that, in any such establishment or branch, the concerned head or persons in- charge of such establishment, branch or unit nominated by the company as responsible, shall be responsible for the offences committed by such establishment. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner is not a person who is in-charge or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business. Apart from the above, there are no averments in the co