Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J.:- This petition is at the instance of the petitioners who have been summoned in the complaint case filed under the Food Adulteration Act (here-in-after referred to as the Act).

2. The Government Food Inspector, Faridabad had inspected the premises in Sector – 24, Faridabad and had taken the sample of ‘Haldi Powder’. The sample was taken from possession of Suresh Garg, Manager of Bikanerwala Foods Pvt. Ltd. Company, Faridabad. The sample failed and prosecution was launched and complaint Annexure P-8 was filed against Suresh Garg. Notice was issued to him and Suresh Garg had put in appearance. Notice of accusation was served upon the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. An application was filed by Suresh praying therein that additional accused should be impleaded in his place and he named Shyam Sunder Aggarwal and Chetan Aggarwal, Directors of M/s. Bikanerwala Foods Pvt. Ltd. and sought his own deletion.

3. No objection was given to the application by the government Food Inspector and the application was allowed and the present petitioners were summoned as additional accused.

4. The petitioners seeks to challenge order dated 11.05.2010 Annexure P-13 which reads as under:-

“Accused Suresh Garg has filed his affidavit in support of his application dated 25.04.2009 for impleading the owner of the firm. Reply to that application not filed by the GFI. However, GFI has recorded no objection on that application. Heard. In view of the facts mentioned in the application and no objection recorded by GFI, the application is allowed and Sarv Shri Shyam Sunder Aggarwal and Chetan Aggarwal both sons of late Shri Jugal Kishor, residents of 37/78, Punjabi Bagh, West, New Delhi, Directors of M/s. Bikanerwala Foods (P) Ltd. Plot No.21, Sector 24, NIT, Faridabad are hereby impleaded as accused no.2 and 3 in the complaint. Amended title be filed and notice to newly added accused be issued for 3.8.2010.”

5. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners was that there was no averment in the complaint qua the role of the Directors and the petitioners were not the persons who were responsible as the company had nominated Suresh Garg. The counsel had referred to Annexure P-2 and also to the resolution appended along with it and had urged that the petitioners could not be summoned because they were not responsible or incharge of the affairs of the company and it was the duty of the Magistrate to ensure that the process was issued only against those persons against whom there were specific allegations in the complaint and the order be set aside. It was urged that Section 33 of the Insecticide Act is pari materia with the provisions contained in the Food Adulteration Act. It was urged that under Section 20-A of the Food Adulteration Act, the Court has the power to summon the additional accused but there has to be some evidence and no evidence had been led. It was urged that the petitioners had been summoned after the expiry of limitation and the chances of re-analysis will not be available to them. It was urged that in Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2009) 2 SCC 370, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that the remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be availed. Reliance was also placed upon State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Rajiv Khurana 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 912.

6. On the other hand, the submission made on behalf of the respondent was that the petitioners were the Directors and were Incharge of the Company and the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable and alternative remedy of revision was available which had not been availed. He also sought support from Dhariwal Tabacco’s case (supra).

7. It is necessary to refer to the complaint (Annexure P-8) that was filed before the CJM, Faridabad which reads as under:-

“The complainant as Food Inspector appointed under the act for all the local areas of Distt./Sub Div./Tehsil Faridabad vide Haryana Govt. Notifi