Specific allegations supported by evidence are required to prosecute directors or partners of a company/firm under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners herein seeking quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 642/2011 registered for the offences under Sections 7 and 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 50 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan.

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal the instant misc. petition are noted hereinbelow:-

3. The Food Inspector, Jodhpur visited premises of M/s Shriram International (Unit of Shriram Hotel), Residency Road, Ratanada, Jodhpur on 29.04.2011, where he met Vikas Shrivastav (Seller & General Manager). Food articles viz. vegetables, Rotis, Paneer Pakoda etc. were being prepared and served to the public in the hotel. The Food Inspector collected sample of food article Paneer (cottage cheese) from the cold storage of the hotel. The sample of Paneer was divided into three parts, one of which was forwarded to the Local Health Authority, Jodhpur for analysis from where, a report dated 25.05.2011 was received to the effect that the food article (Paneer) was adulterated. The Food Inspector thereafter, collected details of the partners/directors of the firm M/s Shriram International and was allegedly apprised that the petitioners herein, Bhanwarlal and Omprakash were the partners of the firm which was operating the hotel. Accordingly, a complaint came to be filed by the Food Inspector in the court of CMM, Jodhpur against the petitioners and few others with the allegations that the accused persons being the directors/partners of the firm were liable to be prosecuted for the offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as well as under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules as adulterated food article Paneer was being sold to public from the firm's premises.

4. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners are not connected with the day to day affairs of the Firm and even a bare perusal of the complaint goes to show that the petitioners have not been saddled with the responsibility of conducting the day to day affairs of the Firm in any manner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution against the petitioners is unwarranted. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments:-

1. Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd. Vs. Food Inspector & Anr. : (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 176

2. Shyam Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan : 2012 (2) CJ (Crl.) (Raj.) 815

6. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the complaint lodged against the petitioners is totally bad in the eyes of law and amounts to gross abuse of process of the Court and hence, the same deserves to be quashed qua the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in the identical set of the facts, this Court vide order dated 09.12.2020 has quashed the proceedings of the other petitioners named in the complaint in S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 931/2012.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand opposed the submissions advances by the petitioners' counsel. He submits that the grounds canvassed by the petitioners for quashing the proceedings can be appreciated by the trial court after evidence is recorded at the trial and not by this Court while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned Public Prosecutor however, very fairly submits that the facts narrated in the complaint does not disclose the involvement of the present petitioners in the day to day affairs of the Firm in question.

8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned complaint.

9. It is apparent that other than bare recital in para No.8 of the complaint, which reads as below:-

10. There is not even a whisper in the entire body of complaint that the petitioners herein, were in any manner