Case: Nalin Thakur and others Vs. State of Maharashtra

1. These appeals have been filed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur. The appellants in these criminal appeals are the Directors of a Company, which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Vanaspati, having its factory at Amalner in Maharashtra. The Food Inspector attached to Amalner municipality took samples of Vanaspati and after analysis it was found that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules made thereunder. The prosecution was launched impleading all these appellants as accused. Out of the five cases, in three cases one S.K. Tokhi was arrayed as an accused as a person nominated by the Company under sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In two cases, the company and the Members of Board of Directors were arrayed as accused. The appellants when received summons from the Magistrate Court filed application under section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court to quash the prosecution against these appellants. They contended that the company had validly nominated a person under sub-section (2) of Section 17 to be In-charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company and therefore Members of the Board of Directors are not liable to be prosecuted. They also contended that the averments in the complaint were not sufficient to implicate these appellants as accused. The learned Single Judge found that the averments are sufficient and the prosecution against these appellants is sustainable and declined to quash the prosecution. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been filed. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also for the counsel for the respondent. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the nomination made under sub-section (2) of Section 17 is not valid nomination, and we feel that is a matter to be decided by the Magistrate. As regards the complicity of these appellants, counsel for the respondent submitted that in the complaint it is alleged that they are Directors of the Company. That apart, we do not find any allegation in the complaint. It is not stated in the complaint that the appellants during the relevant time was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. It is also to be noticed that in the complaint filed by the Food Inspector, there are no averments to implicate these appellants under sub-clause (4) of section 17. 3. Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants to the fact that four other criminal complaints were filed by the same Food Inspector against these appellants and the Members of the Board of Directors and those prosecution were quashed as against the Members of Director Board. Same averments have been made in this complaint. In this view of the matter, this complaint should have been quashed by the learned Single Judge as against these appellants. In the result, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed. However, we make it clear that if the prosecution is successful in producing any materials before the trial court to show that if these appellants could be prosecuted either under Section 17(a)(ii) or section 17(4), the trial court would be at liberty to take action in accordance with law. In

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]we feel that is a matter to be decided by the Magistrate. As regards the complicity of these appellants, counsel for the respondent submitted that in the complaint it is alleged that they are Directors of the Company.That apart, we do not find any allegation in the complaint. It is not stated in the complaint that the appellants during the relevant time was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. It is also to be noticed that in the complaint filed by the Food Inspector, there are no averments to implicate these appellants under sub-clause (4) of section 17.Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants to the fact that four other criminal complaints were filed by the same Food Inspector against these appellants and the Members of the Board of Directors and those prosecution were quashed as against the Members of Directoraverments have been made in this complaint. In this view of the matter, this complaint should have been quashed by the learned Single Judge as against these appellants. In the result, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed. However, we make it clear that if the prosecution is successful in producing any materials before the trial court to show that if these appellants could be prosecuted either under Section 17(a)(ii) or section 17(4), the trial court would be at liberty to take action in accordance with law.