R. SAXENA, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been preferred against the order dated 22. 1. 93 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No. 56/88, whereby she dismissed petitioners application filed under Section 245 (2) Cr. P. C. on the ground that the same was premature.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY the relevant facts are that on 16. 5. 88 the Food Inspector, Jodhpur purchased Kwality Ice Cream from one Jagdish Chandra Gupta of Chandra Enterprises, Jodhpur, that ice cream was divided into three samples, which were duly sealed. A sample thereof was sent to the Public Analyst, Jodhpur, who by his report dated 1. 6. 88 opined that the said sample did not conform to the prescribed standard under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short Rules) and was, therefore, adulterated. It is alleged that Jagdish Chandra informed the Food Inspector that M/s. Chandra Enterprises, Jodhpur was the Distributor of the Kwality Ice Creams Company, Jaipur and that he had purchased the said Ice Cream from Shri RB. Mathur, the Distribution Manager of Kwality Ice Cream. Shri R. B. Mathur, in his turn informed the Food Inspector that the Ice Cream in question was manufactured by M/s. Kwality Ice Cream Company, New Delhi. The Food Inspector after procuring the requisite section under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the Act) filed a criminal complaint dated 22. 7. 88 against Jagdish Chandra Gupta of M/s. Chandra Enterprises, Shri R. B. Mathur, Distribution Manager, M/s. Kwality Ice Cream Company, Jaipur and petitioner P. L. Lamba, Managing Director, M/s. Kwality Ice Cream Company Food Products (P) Ltd. , New Delhi for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act.

( 3 ) ACCUSED Jagdish Chandra and R. B. Mathur put their appearance before the learned Trial Magistrate and on their request the second sample was sent under Section 13 (2) of the Act for chemical analysis to the Public Analyst, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, who by his report dated 27. 11. 89 opined that the said sample was adulterated.

( 4 ) BAILABLE warrants were issued to ensure the attendance of the petitioner, who through his Advocate put his appearance and filed an application dated 4. 6. 91 under Section 245 (2) Cr. P. C. alleging that the complaint filed by the Food Inspector did neither disclose that he was Incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the time of the commission of the alleged offence nor there was any averment therein to show any act committed by him from which reasonable inference could be drawn that he was vicariously liable. He also asserted that there was a valid nomination made in favour of Shri Rajni Kant Sharma, Dairy Technologist of M/s. Kwality Ice Cream Company, B-12, Lawrence Road, New Delhi by the Company in pursuance to its resolution dated 5. 9. 85 to be the Incharge of, and responsible to, the said Company for the conduct of its business under Rule 12-B of the Rules, which was duly accepted under Section 17 (2) of the Act by the said Rajni Kant Sharma and acknowledged by the Local (Health) Authority namely the Joint Director, Prevention of Food Adulteration, Delhi Administration, Delhi. The petitioner also filed a copy of the said nomination. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that proceedings against him be dropped and he be discharged. The learned Trial Magistrate by her impugned order dismissed the said application. Hence this petition.

( 5 ) I have heard Mr. P. N. Mohanani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. M. Singhvi, the learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the record of the lower Court.

( 6 ) IT has been vehemently canvassed by Mr. Mohanani that the criminal complaint neither discloses any offence against the petitioner nor there is any averment not any evidence from which reasonable inference could be drawn that he was incharge of, and responsible to the Compan