A Managing Director of a company cannot be held liable for an offence committed by the company without an allegation that he was responsible for the day-to-day business affairs of the company.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by one Ramesh Vangal, Managing Director of Pepsi Foods Limited, New Delhi, for quashing of complaint, Annexure P-2, summoning order, Annexure P-3 and the proceedings initiated thereon, against him, under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur.

2. In brief, the facts are that on 28.11.1991, Food Inspector visited the factory premises of Pepsi Foods Limited, situated at village Channo, District Sangrur, and lifted a sample of Iodized salt lying in polythene packets which were supplied by M/s Indus Diet Specialities Pvt. Ltd., Mohali, Chandigarh. The sample was divided into three equal parts. One part of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, who found that the water insoluble matter of the contents of the sample is 1.28% against the maximum prescribed standard of 1.0%. On the basis of the said report, the Food Inspector filed a Complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, under Sections 7 and 16 of the Act, against one Kanish Malik, Production Manager of the company, who was arrayed as respondent No. 2, and against the petitioner who at the relevant time was the Managing Director of the company. Vide order dated 9.4.1992, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, summoned the Production Manager as well as the petitioner. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the complaint and the summoning order, on the ground that there is no allegation made in the complaint that the petitioner was the in-charge of the day-to-day business affairs of the companys unit.

3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents, who have filed written statement denying the averments made in the petition.

4. Ms. Vanita Sapra, Advocate, for the petitioner, in support of grounds for quashing has placed reliance upon judgments in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, AIR 1983 SC 67. R. Banerjee and others v. H.D. Dubey and others, AIR 1992 SC 1168 and Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D.N. Mehta and another, AIR 1971 SC 2162.

5. Mr. N.S. Boparai, AAG Punjab, appearing for the State, has contended that it is not necessary to allege that the Managing Director was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, because by the office he is holding, he would be deemed to have been responsible for conduct of business of the company.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the matter in issue stands squarely covered by judgment in Mayur Panabhai Shahs, R. Banerjees and Girdhari Lal Guptas cases (supra), cited by the counsel. Section 17 of the Act provides for the procedure, when an offence has been committed by the company. For the purpose of decision of this petition, it would be sufficient to notice sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 17 of the Act. The same read as under :-

"17. Offences by companies. (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company - (a)(i) the person, if any, who has been nominated under sub-section (2) to be in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company (hereinafter in this section referred to as the person responsible), or

(ii) where no person has been so nominated every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company; and

(b) the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly;

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

(2) Any company, may, by order in writing authorise any of its directors or managers (such manager being employ