Honble TIBREWAL, J.–By this Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners are challenging the order dated 6.4.95 whereby cognizance for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) has been taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The Food Inspector filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magi-strate, Jaipur City, Jaipur against 9 persons, including the six petitioners who have approached this Court for quashing the impugned order and pending criminal proceedings against them.

(2). M/s. U.P. Hotels Ltd. is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. This Company runs hotels at several places in India including HotelClarkes Amer at Jaipur. Shri L.P. Gupta (Petitioner No.1) is Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company, Shri A.K. Gupta (petitioner No.5) is Vice President and Senior General Manager of the Company i.e. M/s. U.P. Hotels Ltd. Shri Upendra Kumar Gupta (petitioner No.3) and Shri Virendra Kumar Gupta (petitioner No.4) are Directors of the Company, while Shri K.C. Ajmera is Chief Manager (Accounts)in Hotel Clarkes Amer, Jaipur.

(3). The prosecution case, as pleaded in the complaint is that on February 17, 1994, the Food Inspector - Prakash Chand inspected hotel Clarkes Amer and found co-accused Ghasi Lal in the Hotel who was the vendor and Store Keeper at that time. The store of the Hotel was inspected in presence of Shri Ghasi Lal and theFood Inspector purchased `Dal Moong-Mogar weighing 750 gms. from him. A sample of the Food article was sent for examination to the State Central Public Health Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur. On examination, the sample was found adulterated for presence of added colour. Thereafter, a complaint was filed against 9 persons as stated earlier. The other three co-accused are (i) Ghasi Lal from whomthe sample was purchased and who was Store Keeper from where sample was taken; (ii) Shri Prem Singh Son of Prahalad Singh, Manager of Hotel Clarkes Amer and (iii) Ram Niranjan son of Shri Mohan Lal Mahajan manufacturer of the food article from whom it was purchased by the hotel management. It may be stated here that the impugned order taking cognizance is not being challenged by the co-accused Ghasi Lal, Prem Singh and Ram Niranjan.

Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, contends that in the complaint and `Fard-Report prepared by the Food Inspector at the time of taking sample, the co-accused Prem Singh has been shown to be the nominee of Hotel Clarkes Amer and he being Incharge of and responsible for conduct of business of the hotel, pro-secution of the petitioners is not sustainable in law. Another contention seriously canvassed before me is that the petitioners, except petitioner K.C. Ajmera, are Directors and Chairman-cum- Managing Director or Vice President of the Company M/s. U.P. Hotels Ltd. and there is no averment in the complaint that they or any one of them were/was incharge of and responsible for conduct of business of the Hotel.Elaborating this contention, learned counsel contended that as per the complaint, co-accused Prem Singh was Manager of the Hotel at the relevant time and article of food was purchased from co-accused Ghasi Lal who was vendor and incharge of the Store from where sample of food was taken/purchased by the Food Inspector. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that on admitted facts, as per the com-plaint and documents filed alongwith the complaint, prosecution of the petitioners would amount an abuse of process of the Court.

(4). Shri R.S. Agrawal, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand vehemently contended that though in `Fard-report and even in complaint, co-accused Prem Singh has been shown as a nominee to be incharge of and responsible for conduct of the business of the Hotel, but this fact is wrongly mentioned as per information supplied to him by the authorities. Learned Public Prosecutor furthercontended that at this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document