M.C. JAIN, J.—The above-noted three matters arise out of the prosecution against the petitioners under Sec. 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)-

2. Briefly stated the facts are that, Shri Shyamlal Bhati, Food Inspector, Gulabpura town presented a complaint on 4-3-76 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara through the Assistant Public Prosecutor, No. 1, Bhilwara against the vendor Shri Satyanarain and M/S Brooke Bond India Limited with the allegations that on 11-12-75 at 9.45 a.m., he visited the shop of the accused Satyanarain and purchased a sample of tea. It was put into three files. All the three files were packed and sealed and one of the files was sent to the Public Analyst. On examination, the Public Analyst found the sample of tea adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. The accused Satyanarain disclosed that he had purchased the tea from the Agent of the Brooke Bond vide Cash Memo No. 96153-18 in packets. The cash-memo was collected by the Food Inspector from the vendor and thereafter, the complaint was presented.

3. On 7-4-76, the Assistant Public Prosecutor sought time for furnishing the correct name and address of the manufacturer. On the next date as well, time was again sought by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. On behalf of the complainant, an application was presented on 29-5-76 for summoning the Directors and the Salesman of the manufacturer Company M/s Brooke Bond India Ltd. On 19-8-76, the court further ordered that before summoning the Directors of the Company, the Assistant Pubic Prosecutor should point out as to who is the Managing Director of the Company and whether only the Managing Director is to be summoned or all the Directors are to be summoned. On 27-9-76, the case was registered only against the vendor Shri Satyanarain and the Salesman Shri Mangilal, whose name was subsequently corrected as Mangilal. Ultimately, on 11-7-78. the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara took cognizance of the offence against the seven Directors of the Company and ordered that bailable warrants in the sum of Rs 2000/- be issued against them. S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 98/78 is presented by seven Directors as well as M/S Brooke Bond India Limited for quashing the proceedings against them. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 662/79 is presented by the three Directors of the Company and other Directors have been impleaded as respondents S.P. Civil Writ Petition No. 663/79 is presented by the Salesman Shri Mangilal.

4. I have heared Dr. L.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri N.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri B.C. Bhansali, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

5. The main question, which has been canvassed before me in these petitions is whether the Directors of the Company M/S Brooke Bond India Ltd. and the Salesman of that Company have been rightly prosecuted under Sec. 16(1) of the Act, and whether cognizance has been lawfully taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate? Sec. 17 of the Act. deals with the offences by Companies. Under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 17 wherein certain persons and the company, both can be prosecuted. Under sub-sec. (1) (a; of Sec. 17, it is provided that where an offence has been committed by a company, the person, if any who has been nominated under sub-sec. (2) to be incharge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company or where no person has been so nominated, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 17 contains a deeming provision. Before applying this deeming provision, it has to be alleged that a particular person was nominated or particular persons were incharge of and were respo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document