IMPORTANT POINT
Partners of a firm are not liable for offences under the Food Safety Act unless specific allegations of their involvement are made.

ORDER :

The 2 ^nd respondent filed Annexure-1 complaint before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Perambra arraigning the petitioners and three others as the accused. The offences alleged against them are punishable under Section 3 (1)(zz)(viii), Section 26 (1), Section 26 (2)(i) and Section 59 (i) read with Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 . The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to all the accused. Accused Nos.3 to 9 have filed this petition invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the complaint and further proceedings based on the complaint in C.C.No.397 of 2022 as against them.

2. The allegations based on which complaint was lodged are the following:

At about 1.00 p.m on 18.10.2021 the 2 ^nd Respondent inspected the premises of "M/s.Malabar Bhavan Restaurant" at Perambra ("the Food Business Establishment"). The 1 ^st accused, who was the Food Business operator at that time. The 2 ^nd respondent revealed his intention to take sample of the food products and thereafter purchased 2kg chicken fry kept for sale as sample and had paid Rs.500/- towards its cost. The sample of chicken so purchased on analysis was found to contain added synthetic food colour, Sunset Yellow, a prohibited addent. Thereby, the 1 accused being the person in immediate charge of st the business, the partnership firm and its partners, who were conducting the food business establishment have committed the said offences.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution.

4. Going by the allegations in the complaint and the averments in the petition, it is seen that the first accused was the person in charge of the business at the time when the 2 nd respondent inspected the business establishment. It is contended that a partnership firm named M/s.Malabar Bhavan Restaurant was the food business establishment and the petitioners being its partners alone are not responsible for the offences. Annexure-IV is a copy of the deed of partnership. The allegation in the complaint is also to the same effect.

5. From the copy of the deed of partnership it is seen that the management of the firm business was entrusted with the managing partner who is Mohammed Ismail - the 2 nd accused. Petitioners who are accused Nos.3 to 9 are arraigned in the capacity of the partners of the firm. They have not been responsible for the conduct of the business, and they have not been personally involved in the affairs of the food business establishment. In that view of the matter they claim that Annexure-I complaint as against them is liable to be quashed.

6. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the aforesaid contentions are refuted by the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution by contending that Section 66 (2) of the Food Safety and Standards Act enables the Food Safety officer to prosecute every person involved in the business and on whose part there was negligence in the matter of running the food business. It is accordingly submitted that plea for quashing the complaint cannot be entertained.

7. Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act reads as follows:

“66. Offences by companies.-

(1) 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 estab