The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint filed under

Sections 26, 27 and 59 of the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006

(herein after referred to as "the Act of 2006") and for quashing the

-( 2 )-

orders directing issuance of the warrant of arrest against the

petitioner in Criminal Case No.829/2013 (State of M.P. Through

Food Safety Officer, Guna Vs. Ajeet Jain and others) pending before

JMFC, Guna.

2.

The brief facts of the case are as follows. On the basis of a complaint

filed before the JMFC, Guna by the respondents herein, notice was

directed to be issued to the petitioner who was arrayed as accused

No.4. On 02.02.2019, bailable warrants were directed to be issued

against the petitioner and on 11.05.2019, 04.06.2019 and on

22.06.2019 non- bailable warrants of arrest were directed to be

issued against the petitioner. The offender in this case is Ravi Foods

Pvt. Ltd. (Unit-II) which came into existence in the year 1988 as a

manufacturer of biscuits and other bakery products at Hyderabad.

3.

According to the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, a sample of

Elaichi Flavored Cream Biscuits was taken from the Food Safety

Officer, Guna from one Ajeet Jain who is accused No.1 and

Panchnama was prepared on spot on 23.02.2012 with regard to the

seizure of the said biscuits. The sample was sent to food analyst

Bhopal, which is found to be misbranded by its report dated

06.03.2012 and it was again sent for analysis to the CFTRI at Mysore

and by report dated 21.05.2012, the sample was found unfit for

human consumption because of the presence of Emulsifiers (322.471)

(Licithin). In view of the second report from the Mysore Laboratory

which reflects that the food product which was Dukes Cream,

Elaichi Flavored Biscuits was found unfit for human consumption,

the complaint was filed by the respondents against four persons.

-( 3 )-

4.

The first accused was Ajeet Jain (retailer), the proprietor of Shanti

Sales from whom the sample was seized. Second accused was

Shishir Goyal, who was owner of Firm Nirmal Chandra - Sharad

Chandra Goyal, the distributor in this case. The third accused was

nominee Mr. B. Dinkar, the Laboratory In-charge of Ravi Foods Pvt.

Ltd. (Unit-II) at Madhuban Colony at Kattendan, Hyderabad and the

fourth accused was the Directors of Ravi Foods Pvt. Ltd., (Unit-II).

Undisputedly, the company - Ravi Foods Pvt. Ltd., has not been

made an accused in this case. The sanction for prosecution was

granted on 08.04.2013 which is prior to the institution of the

complaint case before the learned trial Court on 10.05.2013. The

sanction for prosecution has also been granted only with regard to

the aforementioned four persons. No prosecution sanction has been

given with regard to the prosecution company itself.

5.

The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is restricted to

two points. First, that the company has not been impleaded and

therefore, in view of Section 66 of the Act of 2006, the Directors

could only be held vicariously liable and in the absence of company

itself as an accused, the Directors could not be held vicariously liable.

Secondly, the complainant was aware that B. Dinkar, who was the

Food Safety Officer of the company was nominated to represent the

company and, therefore, in the light of the first proviso to Section 66

of the Act of 2006, the Directors of the company could not have been

prosecuted.

6.

As regards special statutes which provides for prosecution of the

Directors for the offences committed by the companies, it is settled

-( 4 )-

law that the Directors can not be prosecuted in isolation where the

company has not been made an accused (Aneeta Hada Vs.

Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661

and Sanghi Brothers Indore (p) Ltd. Vs. Premchand, 2011 SCC

Online MP 1299), Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rane

(2015) 12 SCC 781 Para 11, Managing Director Vs. State of

Karnataka (2018) 17 SCC 275 and Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs.

S