IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3527 OF 2008 Between: Mr. Deepak Kaul and another … PETITIONERS And The State of Andhra Pradesh … RESPONDENT This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3527 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2/A3 and A4 are Regional Vice President/Proprietor of M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited and M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited. They are accused of offence under Sections 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (in short, the Act) punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the said Act for the alleged contamination in Thums Up soft drink bottle purchased by the Food Inspector from the shop of A1. 2. Even though this petition is filed by A3 and A4 together, the petitioners’ counsel stated that he does not propose to argue in support of the A4's case and therefore, A4 may be permitted to raise all its contentions during trial in the lower Court. Thus, main controversy in this case is about impleading of A3 in the charge sheet. 3. The petitioners’ counsel placing reliance on Section 17 (1) of the Act contended that the company has nominated one G.S.K. Nagarjuna Rao, Quality Assurance Executive, as the nominee under Section 17 (2) of the Act and that therefore, the said nominee alone is to be prosecuted as per Section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the Act representing the company and not A3, who is Regional Vice President/Proprietor of the Company. It is further contended that in case any other officer or executive of the Company is to be prosecuted, then the complainant should allege the requirements contemplated under Section 17 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act in the complaint itself and that in the absence of the said allegations, prosecution of A3 is not in accordance with law. He placed reliance on National Small Industries Corporation Limited v. Harmeet Singh Paintal[1], wherein the Supreme Court enunciated particulars to be furnished by the complainant in the complaint before prosecuting a Director or Executive of a Company for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as contemplated under Section 141 of the said Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. This Court is of the opinion that when there is nomination furnished by A4 Company under Section 17 (2) of the Act, then Section 17 (1) (a) (i) alone is applicable and the question of prosecuting any person or every person who at the time the offence was committed was incharge of and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company, will not arise under Section 17 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act. The complainant/Food Inspector in the complaint itself stated that A4 Company furnished nomination in response to a letter addressed by him. The Food Inspector also enclosed copy of the said nomination letter along with the complaint. Further, the Food Inspector sought for sanction for prosecution as against the said nominee only and not as against A3. Therefore, prosecution of A3 in this case is contrary to Section 17 of the Act. 5. Hence, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.62 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gajapathinagaram, insofar as the petitioner No.1/A3 is concerned; and the petition is partly dismissed insofar as the petitioner No.2/A4 is concerned. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 23, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3527 OF 2008 July 23, 2010 [1] (2010) 3 SCC 330