Madras High Court
B.Vimal Kumar vs The Food Inspector on 7 December, 2017
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.12.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17489 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2012 and 1 of 2013 B.Vimal Kumar ... Petitioner/Accused No.5 Vs. The Food Inspector, Kovilpatti Municipality, Kovilpatti. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the criminal complaint in C.C.No.50 of 2011, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Kovilpatti, against the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.S.Prabhu For Respondent : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Criminal side) :ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash C.C.No.50 of 2011, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Kovilpatti.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already resigned the post of Director of the Company on 31.03.2006 and without knowing the said fact, he has been arrayed as one of the accused in C.C.No.50 of 2011, as if he misbranded the company product, which is bad in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the certified copy of Form ? 32, dated 15.02.2007, issued under Section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is not associated with the Company with effect from 31.03.2006 and the same was confirmed by the Managing Director of Grishi Mango Products and Exports (TN) Pvt. Ltd., in the extract of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company, held at the Registered Office on 31.03.2006 at 10.00 a.m. In that resolution, the Company resolved to approve the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 31.03.2006. Hence, the petitioner is not associated with the Company. Without knowing the abovesaid facts, the respondent implicated the petitioner as one of the accused in the criminal proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules.
3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent after perusing Form-32 and the Minutes of the Meeting, fairly conceded that the complaint may be quashed in respect of the petitioner alone and seeks a direction to the trial Court to proceed with the trial in respect of the other accused.
4.I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
5.In the light of the abovesaid submission of the learned counsel appearing on either side that the petitioner is not associated with the company from 2006 and the sample was taken on 15.09.2009 at 4 p.m., this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Original Petition.
6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.50 of 2011, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Kovilpatti, is quashed in respect of the petitioner/A5 alone. This Court has not expressed any opinion in respect of the other accused. Therefore, the trial Court may independently deal with the case with regard to other accused without being influenced by any of the observation made by this Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti.
2.The Food Inspector, Kovilpatti Municipality, Kovilpatti.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.