Point of law: Section 17(1)(b) clearly provides that the “Company”, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Therefore, in case, it is admitted by revisionist that he is nominee of the “Company” under the provisions of Section 17(1)(a) of the Act, 1954, even though it is required on the part of the Complainant to make “Company” accused as provided under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act, 1954. Therefore in light of provisions of Section 17 (1)(b) of the Act, “Company” is necessary party and no Complaint can be maintained without impleading “Company” as accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sanjay Sharma and Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Present revision has been filed against the order dated 16.05.1988 passed by Munsif Magistrate (Economic Offences), Bijnor in Criminal Case No. 1578 of 1986 directing for framing of charges against revisionist under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1954).

3. Brief facts of the case is that revisionist was working as Deputy Sales Manager D.C.M. Chemical Works, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi10005, (Later on known as Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizer Industries, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi), Branch Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”). A raid was conducted by Food Inspector at the shop of Babu Singh. He has purchased Rath vegetable oil weighing 1500 grams/1.5 kilograms after payment of Rs. 27/-by adopting due procedure of law. Rath Vegetable oil was manufactured by “Company”. He has sent Rath vegetable oil to Public Analyst U.P., Lucknow for chemical examination and as per report no. 2588 dated 24.02.1984, same was found adulterated. Thereafter, he has lodged Complaint before the Special Judicial Magistrate (Crime), Bijnor under the provisions of the Act, 1954. Order dated 16.05.1988 was passed for framing charges against revisionist and revisionist filed discharge application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. dated 19.01.1988. Apart from many other grounds, he has also taken ground that provisions of Section 17 of the Act, 1954 has not been complied with as “Company” was not made the accused. The said discharge application was rejected by the Court below vide order dated 16.05.2018, hence the present revision.

4. Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist submitted that present revision has been filed on many grounds, but he is pressing only ground no. 5 i.e. while filing the Complaint, Section 17 of the Act, 1954 has been violated as the “Company” has not been made an accused and mandatory provision under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Act, 1954 has been violated. Section 17(1)(a) of the Act, 1954 provides for nomination of a person and Section 17(1)(b) provides liability upon Company, therefore, Section 17(1) (a) and (b) of the Act, 1954 requires that the nominated person and the Company must be made an accused. It is further submitted that Section 17(1) (a) of the Act, 1954 provides that there should have been nomination of person for the conduct of the business of the Company and when no person is nominated, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, be responsible for the conduct of business of the Company. Further Section 17(1)(b) provides that the Company responsible for offence and further made clear that in case of offence persons referred in Section 17(1) (a), they shall be liable to be guilty. It is next submitted that Section 17 (2) provides that any Company may, by order in writing, authorize any of its directors or managers (such manager being employed mainly in a managerial or supervisory capacity) to exercise all such powers and take all such steps as may be necessary or expedient to prevent the commission of offence by Company by this Act and may give notice to the Local (Health) Authority, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, that it has nominated such director or manager as the person responsible, alongwith the written consent of such director or manager for being so nominated.

5. In the present case, revisionist was never nominated in terms of Section 17(1) and (2) of the Act, 1954 and “Company” has also not been made accused, therefore, Complaint is bad and impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. It is next submitted that while rejecting the discharge application dated 19.01.1988, learned Judge has not returned proper finding and stated that the said provision is