THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7779 of 2007 ORDER: Petitioners – A2 and A3 approach this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.959 of 2006 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hafeezpet, Cyberabad, R.R.District, whereby they are facing charge for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954(for short ‘the Act’). The first petitioner is the Managing Director of the company and the second petitioner is the company concerned. The main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that as per the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, if a person is nominated by the concerned company to prosecute whenever an offence is committed and if the same is accepted by the authorities concerned, there cannot be any prosecution against the present petitioners herein and also he produced Form No - II signed by the authorities concerned, wherein one M. Srinivasulu Naidu, S/o. M. Ranga Rao, resident of F-4, Surabhi Nest, Rajeev Nagar, Hyderabad – 45 is nominated as per Sub.Section (2) of Section 17 of the Act. It clearly indicates that for any offences committed, the person to be prosecuted is the said Srinivasulu Naidu. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the same was informed to the authorities concerned even prior to the filing of the present complaint. This Court perused the entire documents and also heard the submissions. This Court is of the view that when there is a specific provision enabling the authorities concerned to prosecute a person whenever an offence is committed, there is no need to proceed further against the petitioners. But, in the present case the said nominee is not arrayed as an accused, whereas the present petitioners alone arrayed as accused. Learned Public Prosecutor informed to this Court that in food adulteration cases, if the person wants to be prosecuted is not before the Court, the trial Court is at liberty to invoke the provision under Section 20(a) of the Act to prosecute the person, who has to be prosecuted as per law. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that while allowing the petition as far as the petitioners are concerned, remand the said case for fresh adjudication before the concerned court. On receipt of the documents as per the order of this Court, the learned Magistrate is directed to peruse the records and also to verify the nomination of the said Srinivasulu Naidu informed to the concerned officers and if so, he is at liberty to proceed against the concerned persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in R.BANERJEE AND OTHERS v.H.D.DUBEY AND OTHERS[1] wherein the Apex Court also remanded the case for fresh consideration. The judgment of the Supreme Court runs as follows: “In the result, the appeals are allowed. The order of the learned Magistrate as well as the impugned order of the High Court are set aside. The matters are remanded to the learned trial Magistrate with a direction to inquire into the question whether the nomination forms nominating H.Dayani and Dr.Nirmal Sen were received and acknowledged by the Local (Health) Authority competent to receive and acknowledge the same. This uestion will be considered as a preliminary question and the learned Magistrate will record a finding thereon. If he comes to the conclusion that the nomination forms had been acknowledged by the competent Local (Health) Authority he shall drop the proceedings against the Directors of the company, other than the company and the nominated persons. If on the other hand he comes to the conclusion that the prescribed forms had been acknowledged by a person other than the competent Local (Health) Authority he will proceed against all the persons who are shown as the accused in the complaint i.e. all the Directors including the nominated persons and the company. The appeals are allowed accordingly.” This Court is also of the view that the Magistrate can proceed further against the said Srinivasulu Naidu, after perusal of the records concerned. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed along with the criminal petition shall stand closed. ________________ RAJA ELANGO, J. 17th March 2011, Rns. [1] 1992 CRL.L.J.1523(1)