Madhya Pradesh High Court
R. Subramanium vs State Of M.P. And Anr. on 20 August, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005CRILJ2382
ORDER S.L. Jain, J.
1. Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 337/02 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Seoni, for an offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").
2. Facts leading to filing of this petition succinctly narrated are thus : A complaint for an offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act was filed against the petitioner and four other persons. The case of the prosecution is that on 25-6-93, respondent No. 2 Food Inspector, Seoni lifted a sample of Flora Sunflower Oil from the shop of Girdharilal Khemka. On analysis, this oil was found to be adulterated. The article in question was manufactured by Lipton India Limited. At the relevant time, Chandra Kant Pisse, accused No. 5, was the Branch Manager of Lipton India Limited, Nagpur Branch. At that time petitioner was posted as Commercial Manager of this Branch. It was the Nagpur Branch which supplied the oil in question.
3. It is alleged in the petition that Chandra Kant Pisse was the nominee of Nagpur Branch, Lipton India Limited. He had accepted the nomination on 17-9-92. The nomination was then dispatched to the Local Health Authority, Bhopal which had been accepted by him. A photocopy of the nomination has been filed with the petition. This nomination was in force on the date of the commission of the alleged offence. Earlier also, petitioner had filed a petition in this Court for quashing of the proceedings which was numbered as M.Cr.C. No. 1455/97/. By order dated 2-1-01, this Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the trial Magistrate for discharge. The trial Magistrate was directed to decide such application before proceeding with the case. Accordingly, petitioner filed an application before the trial Magistrate praying for discharge. Vide order dated 10-10-03, learned trial Magistrate rejected the petition.
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed this petition praying for quashing the proceedings.
5. I have heard Shri Surendra Singh, learned senior counsel with Shri Jagat Sher Singh for the petitioner and Shri Pramod Choubey, learned Government Advocate for the State.
6. The main thrust of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 17 of the Act provides that where an offence under the Act has been committed by a Company, the person if any who has been nominated under Sub-section (2) to be the in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence. According to this provision, it is only where no person has been nominated that every person who at the time of commission of offence was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business can be prosecuted against and punished under law. In the present case, it was not disputed before the trial Court that Chandra Kant Pisse was a nominee of Lipton India Ltd., Nagpur Branch. A copy of the nomination has been filed alongwith the petition as Annexure C. A perusal of this document reveals that Chandra Kant accepted the nomination and the same was acknowledged by the Local Health Authority. Before this Court also, the genuineness of nomination has not been disputed, therefore, according to the provisions of Section 17(1)(a) of the Act, Chandra Kant Pisse alone can be deemed to be guilty of the offence and is liable to be proceeded against.
7. The trial Court refused to discharge the petitioner on the ground that Section 17(4) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 17 of the Act, any Director, Manager, Secretary or any other officer of the Company not being a person nominated under Sub-section (2) shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. But the prosecution of Director, Manager and Secretary is not justified when Section 17(4) is not attracted. There is no allegation in the complaint that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the Company. There is no allegation in the complaint that there was any nexus between the petitioner and the crime. A perusal of the complaint shows that petitioner has been implicated just because he was Commercial Manager of the Nagpur Branch of the Company. Where it is not alleged in the complaint that the petitioner was incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, he cannot be held liable even if the offence is committed by the Company.
8. It is alleged in the complaint that Mohd. Salim, Depot Manager, R. Subramanium Commercial Manager and Chandra Kant Pisse, Manager can also be prosecuted, as the company did not appoint any nominee. Since it has been established that Chandra Kant Pisse was appointed as nominee, therefore, in the absence of any averment that petitioner during the relevant time was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, he cannot be prosecuted under Sub-clause (4) of Section 17 of the Act.
9. In this view of the matter, complaint against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. However, I make it clear that if the prosecution is successful in producing any material before the trial Court to show that this petition can be prosecuted either under Section 17(a)(2) or Section 17(4) of the Act, the trial Court would be at liberty to take action in accordance with law.
10. In the result, the complaint is quashed as against the petitioner as the continuance of the same would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. However, the trial Court shall proceed against other accused persons in the case.