Criminal Miscellanious No.27042 OF 2006 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ASHOK SALES COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, 51/53, NAYAGANJ, P.S. COLLECTORGANJ, DISTRICT KANPUR NAGAR (U.P.) THROUGH PREMCHAND DIXIT, PRODUCTION MANAGER, R/o 51/92, NAYAGANJ, P.S. COLLECTORGANJ, DISTRICT KANPUR NAGAR (U.P.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. CIVIL SURGEON, NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF. 3. SURESH PRASAD SINGH, FOOD INSPECTOR, NALANDA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :- Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shankar Kumar Thakur, Advocate Mr. Devendra Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For O.P. :- None. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 1.8.1995, passed in Complaint Case No. 15(C-4) of 1995 and the entire prosecution, particularly the orders dated 6.12.1997 which has been passed without vacating the earlier order 2.7.1996. 3. The prosecution report contained in Annexure-4 indicates that „Mahin Saunf‟ was seized by the Food Inspector from the premises-Bhaisasur, Bihar Sharif. The address of the accused is shown as Ashok Sales Company (P) Ltd .,51/53, 2 Nayaganj, Kanpur-208 001. The accused is one Mrs. Shashi Kumari purportedly the Managing Director of Ashok Sales Company Private Limited. The analyst report reads as follows: “The Mahin Saunf is adulterated due to the presence of added colouring matter.” 4. The analyst report indicates Ashok Masala, Manufactured by Ashok Grih Udyog Kendra Private Limited, Kanpur. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the Court had called for a report as to whether Shashi Kumari was the Managing Director of Ashok Sales Company, and had stayed the warrant of arrest by order dated 2.7.1996. Subsequently by order dated 6.12.1997 it has been observed that nobody has appeared on behalf of the accused and the Court has thus issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner. 6. For the first time by filing reply to the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought before this Court the nomination of Sri Gauri Shankar Omer, Son of Sri Lalta Prasad as representative of the company. The said nomination has been filed before the local health authority the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Nagar under sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 envisages that “Any company by an order in writing may authorize any of its Director or Managers to exercise all such powers and take steps necessary to prevent the commission by the company of any offence under the Prevention of Food 3 Adulteration Act, 1954 and make on notice, local (health authority) and such form and manner that it has nominated such Director or Manager as a person responsible along with the written consent of the Director of manager.” 7. Undoubtedly sub-section (2) of Section 17 comes into play when a company is being prosecuted for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. However, it is required that the company should disclose to the Court the fact that the nomination has been filed empowering one of the Managers to represent the company in all matters relating to a commission of a crime under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In this case, the accused has not brought on record any such information before the Court at any stage. The only application filed by them was to say that Mrs. Shashi Kumari is not the Managing Director of the Ashok Sales Company (P) Ltd. This in my opinion is not sufficient. My view is supported by a judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Banerjee & Ors. Vs. H.D. Dubey & Ors. reported in (1992) 2 SCC 552 where the Court quashed the prosecution on the ground that the prosecution was not lodged against the nominated Manager of the company although such information was brought to the notice of the court. It is also the duty of the Court to seek such instruction and the duty of the prosecutor i.e. the Food Inspector to provide such information to the Court. 8. I am not inclined to quash the order of cognizance. I may point out that this case has been filed by Premchand Dixit 4 who had been described as a Production Manager. If the company had nominated a Manager under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 then the quashing application ought to have been filed by the concerned nominated member. 9. In the result, this application is dismissed. However, if the petitioner at any further stage in the case files an application bringing on record the nominated member under sub- section (2) of Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the court below may consider this aspect of the matter. Patna High Court, Dated the 29th of March, 2011, N.A.F.R./Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)