IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO. No. 9 of 2010. Date of Decision: 28.3.2011. _______________________________________________ Khanduri Beverages Private Ltd. ….petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner :Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For Respondent-1. :Mr.P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. For respondents-2&3 Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For respondent No.5. Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.11.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi rejecting the appearance of Sh. Tara Chand as the statutorily nominee of respondent No.5 M/s Khanduri Beverages Private Ltd. Baddi. 2. An application was moved by M/s Khanduri Beverages Pvt. Ltd. under Section 17 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes. 2 Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) stating therein that it be allowed to defend the prosecution through its nominee Sh. Tara Chand. The prayer made is: “It is, therefore prayed that in view of the facts stated above the application may kindly be allowed and the applicant may kindly be allowed to appear before the learned Court on each and every hearing on behalf of the M.D. as well the company for which the applicant shall ever pray and justice be done”. 3. The nomination in terms of Section 17(2) of the Act was produced on record which was duly received and registered with the Local Health Authority, Solan. Learned Court relying upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Azim H.Premji and others Vs. State of Maharastra, 2002 Cr.L.J. 109 rejected the application holding that since the nomination was not registered with the Local Health Authority, Mandi, no permission could be granted. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties in detail. The facts in the case relied upon are distinguishable. In this case what I find is that there is a valid nomination by the Company in the area where he manufactures and stores the carbonated drinks (Coca Cola). In these circumstances, I am not persuaded to hold that the nomination is invalid. In the case relied upon, the Company itself had its manufacturing/storage unit in different parts of Maharashtra and therefore there was no valid compliance of the Rules. In these circumstances, the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi dated 5.11.2009 is quashed and set aside. Prayer made by the petitioner herein reproduced above is allowed. A direction is issued to the learned Magistrate that he shall proceed with the case expeditiously considering the fact that it relates to the year 2004 and a period of 3 more than seven years has elapsed. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi on 2nd May, 2011. Let the record of the case be sent back immediately. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. March 28, 2011(R)