A person cannot be held liable for an offense under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act unless there is evidence to support the allegation that the person was involved in the offense.

1. - This criminal petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court has been directed against the order dated 11.11.1997 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC /ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta thereby dismissing the revision petition against the order dated 20.4.1995 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur.in criminal Case No. 153/95 (123/95) whereby on filing of criminal complaint by the Food Inspector, Ladnu, cognizance of an offence under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been taken against one Radhe Shyam and the present petitioner Ramavtar.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. With the consent of both the parties, this petition is disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself.

3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that Mr. S.K. Singhal, Food Inspector, Nagaur inspected the shop of M/s. Ramavtar Kamal Kishore located at village Thanwla on 29.9.1992 at 2.00 p.m. whereat Radheshyam was present and was Incharge of the business being transacted including the food stuffs. A sample of Suji, on payment of Rs. 3.00/- per kilogram was obtained and was divided into three equal portions and each portion were put into three glass bottles. One portion of sample was, so taken sent to the Food Laboratory and that was found to be adulterated and hence, after obtaining sanction for prosecution from the Medical & Health Officer, Nagaur, a complaint under section 7/16 of P.F.A. Act was filed by the Food Inspector in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur. Here it may be mentioned that in the array of accused persons, first name is that of "M/s. Ramavatar Kamal Kishore" while second is "Radheshyam" and both have been said to be Maheshwaries by caste and residents of village Thanwla, Distt. Nagaur. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on filing of complaint vide order dated 22.4.1994 proceeded to take cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the present petitioner Ramavtar as well as his brother Radheshyam and they were ordered to be summoned by summons and, being aggrieved, Ramavtar preferred a criminal revision petition which was, lastly, decided by Revisional Court and hence this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and rightly too, submitted that shop and premises whereat Radheshyam was found to be carrying on business in food stuffs including 'Suji' etc., was being run in the name and under the style of M/s. Ramavtar Kamal Kishore as is borne out of checking memo. However, Radheshyam, who was incharge of business was found in the shop and trading in the commodities including the food stuffs. It was he who had sold the sample of food stuffs to the Food Inspector. Presently, there is no challenge from the side of Radheshyam. However, main grievance of present petitioner is that he is carrying on business independently at Ahmedabad and he had had no connection with either the business/trade being transacted at the village Thanwla by Radheshyam nor was he a partner in the business of said firm and, therefore, he was in no manner connected with the firm and, therefore, he was not either directly, or vicariously liable for the acts alleged against and attributed to Radheshyam or the firm and, therefore, his submission is that neither Ramavtar was named as accused-petitioner in the checking memo nor did the Chief Medical & Health Officer sanctioned prosecution against the accused petitioner and besides name of petitioner alongwith his parentage is described in place of accused No. 1 in the complaint itself and, instead, as also borne out of the order of sanction as well as original complaint itself, accused No. 1 is none but the said firm styled as "Ramavatar Kamal Kishore" whereas accused-petitioner Ramavtar is son of Gulab chand and, therefore, his identity could not have been described by the name "Ramavtar Kamal Kishore" and, accordingly, his furt