Ms. Anita Chaudhry, J.:- These are two petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint and the summoning order dated 23.05.2007, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana in a complaint filed under Section 16 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (here-in-after referred to as the Act).

2. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the petitions are that the Food Inspector along with the SMO of PHC Sahnewal, Ludhiana visited Country Inns & Suits at Ludhiana and found 5 kg. of Paneer kept in a steel tray and in possession of Anand Vijay, the F & B Manager of Country Inns & Suits, Feroz Gandhi Market, Ludhiana. The complainant disclosed his identity and demanded a sample of Paneer for analysis. A notice in writing was issued in form VI prescribed under the Act and 750 grams of Paneer was purchased for Rs.75/-, against receipt Annexure C-3 which was signed by the accused, the complainant and the witness. After the sample was purchased, it was made homogenous and divided into three equal parts and put in three dried and clean glass bottles. The necessary formalities were undertaken. It would not be relevant to detail the procedure that followed as that is not necessary. The samples were sent for analysis. The Public Analyst, Chandigarh vide its report Annexure C-6 found the samples to be adulterated and accordingly a complaint was filed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana vide order dated 23.05.2007 summoned the General Manager of Country Inns & Suits and the Manager F & B.

3. The petitioner Jayesh Cholera, the General Manager had pleaded that he had no knowledge of the pendency of the complaint or the summoning order as he had left the service and he was out of Ludhiana and he learnt about it in 2011 in a meeting and inspected and verified from the record and came to know of the order. The petitioner has pleaded that there were no specific averments or allegations against him and the complaint had not been filed against the Company and therefore, the order summoning him should be quashed. It was also pleaded that the Paneer was purchased from Food and Beverage Manager and thus he would be a person deemed to have been nominated and there was no reason to array him as an accused and the proceedings against him were an abuse of the process of law.

4. The petitioner Anand Vijay had pleaded that Paneer was not for direct sale and would not bring the case within the ambit of the Act and there were no specific allegations against him as the hotel had separate Manager for purchase and for operations and the Executive Chef was responsible for the stock and his duties were to look-after the banquet and the restaurant and no offence had been committed. It was pleaded that exercising the option, the second sample was sent for analysis and report was received that the sample was ‘unfit for analysis’ and on receipt of the said report, the Chief Judicial Magistrate should have closed the case.

5. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides.

6. The counsel appearing for the petitioners had vehemently urged that the launching of prosecution against the General Manager and not launching prosecution against the company was wrong and the complaint could not proceed. It was urged that bald statement has been made and the Paneer is not sold by the hotel and it is consumed for the preparations made in their own kitchen. It was urged that the role of Anand Vijay is different. It was urged that there was no averment that the Paneer was meant for sale and the complaint would not be maintainable and the complaint is silent with respect to the role of Jayesh Cholera. Reliance was placed upon Dr. Manu Seth, Managing Director, Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Food Inspector (2008) 4 RCR (Crl.) 648, Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Food Inspector and another, [2010(6) Law Herald (SC) 4424] : 2011(1) SCC 176, M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate 1997 (4) RCR (Criminal