A company can be held liable for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, even if no person is nominated as being responsible for the offence, and the company's representative can be held liable for the offence if it is proved that the offence was committed with his consent or neglect.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) PRAYER to be representative in terms of Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'code') as made by one Muralilal Agarwala having been accepted by learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Cuttack (in short, 'jmfc'), this application has been filed.

( 2 ) BACKGROUND facts filtering out unnecessary details are as follows :in a proceeding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the 'act') opposite party - company through its Manager is arrayed as accused No. 2. After service of notice, the accused-company filed a petition styled as one under Section 305 of the Code stating that after all said Muralilal will be its representative in terms of Section 305 of the Code. The prayer was opposed by the present petitioner on the ground that in the absence of any undertaking by the said Muralilal, that he was a person responsible to the company for commission of offence and was in charge of the company and was to be deemed to be guilty of offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished, the prayer in terms of Section 305 of the Code cannot be accepted. The plea did not find acceptable by the learned JMFC, who held that the prayer of Muralilal was to be accepted.

( 3 ) MAIN plank of petitioner's argument is that the liability fixed under Section 17 on a person who is in charge of, and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business was intended to get over resort to Section 305 of the Code, which permitted a person to be representative of a company in a case. It is stated that there must be an undertaking filed by Muralilal that in case the accused-company is found guilty, he shall be liable for punishment in terms of Section 17. The stand of the accused-company on the other hand is that Section 305 of the Code and Section 17 of the Act operate in two different fields, and the controversy now raised is not germane to the question whether the prayer in terms of Section 305 of the Code is acceptable.

( 4 ) FOR resolution of the controversy, reference is necessary to Section 305 of the Code, Section 17 of the Act and Section 63 of the Code, which have some relevance. They said as follows : "s. 305 Cr. P. C. Procedure when corporation or registered society is an accused. (1) In this Section, "corporation" means an incorporated company or other body corporate, and includes a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860 ). (2) Where a corporation is the accused person or one of the accused persons in an inquiry or trial, it may appoint a representative for the purpose of the inquiry or trial and such appointment need not be under the seal of the corporation. (3) Where a representative of a corporation appears, any requirement of this Code that anything shall be done in the presence of the accused or shall be read or stated or explained to the accused, shall be construe as a requirement that that thing shall be done in the presence of the representative that the accused shall be examined shall be construed as a requirement that the representative shall be examined. (4) Where a representative of a corporation does not appear, any such requirement as is referred to in Sub-Section (3) shall not apply. (5) Where a statement in writing purporting to be signed by the managing director of the corporation or by any person (by whatever name called) having, or being one of the persons having the management of the affairs of the corporation to the effect that the person named in the statement has been appointed as the representative of the corporation for the purpose of this Section, is filed, the Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such person has been so appointed. (6) If a question arises as to whether any person, appearing as the representative of a corporation in an inquiry or trial before a Court is or is not such representative, the question shall be determined by the Court. " "s. 17 of the Act. Offences by