Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. Thus, keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases as well as after going through the provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 1954, the averments made in the complaint, the evidence before the charge, the documents which are annexed with the complaint and also referred during the examination in chief of the respondent complainant, it appears that the respondent complainant has simultaneously sought information from Shivam Foods, Nagpur, a firm actively engaged in processing of manufacturing the biscuits for Parle Products Limited, Mumbai and also from the Parle Products Ltd. Mumbai. Upon going through the contents of letter dated 9.2.2011 addressed to the petitioner No.5 Parle Products Limited, Mumbai by the respondent original complainant Food Inspector, it appears that the information was sought on the points, viz. (i) copy of agreement between Parle Products Limited and Satyam Food Products, Khamgaon, (ii) copy of Article of Association of Parle Products Limited, (iii) No. of P.F.A. licence hold by Parle Products Ltd. and it's validity (copy of licence crwp426.13 may please be supplied) (iv) Name and address of nominee, if any, (as per section 17 of the Act of 1954) alongwith copy of nomination.

22. Furthermore, as per the communication dated 24.5.2001, Exh.169 the information was sought from petitioner No.5 the Parle Products Limited in respect of the same points as mentioned above. The prominent amongst them, the name and address of the persons responsible for conduct of business of Parle Products Limited and also name and address of the nominees, if any (as per Section 17 of the Act) alongwith copy of nomination. By letter dated 15.6.2001 Exh.174, the petitioner No.5 Parle Products Limited informed to the respondent complainant that Memorandum and Article of Association of the company has been sent for printing after changes and it will be sent to the respondent positively after the print is received. It has been also informed that the name of the Directors of the company will feature on the documents which will answer the query made by the respondent complainant. After much persuasion, petitioner No.5 Parle Products Limited by letter dated 28.6.2001 informed the names of the present petitioners. Admittedly, there is no nomination of any person under sub-section (2) of Section 17 to be in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, the petitioner No.5 Parle Products Limited by letter dated 28.06.2001 has communicated the names of the petitioners Nos. 1 to crwp426.13 4 by showing their designations as petitioner No.1 V.K. Chauhan, Chairman and Managing Director, petitioner No.2 R.K. Chauhan, Managing Director, petitioner No. 3 S.P. Chauhan, the Managing Director, petitioner No. 4 A.V. Chauhan, Executing Director. In terms of provisions of section 17 (1) (a) (ii) if petitioner No.5 has communicated the names of petitioners as in charge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company, prima facie, the complaint shall be liable to be proceeded against them. Furthermore, proviso to Section 17(1) makes it clear that if any of such person if proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence, then he shall not be liable to any punishment provided under the Act.

23. I have also carefully gone through the agreement between M/s. Shivam Foods, Nagpur and petitioner No.5 Parle Products Limited. The agreement is titled as agreement for processing / Job work. It has been agreed between them that the said firm M/s. Shivam Foods shall process at its own proposed factory; biscuits out of the material given by Parle and as per the orders placed by Parle in terms of the agreement, as per the standards and specifications of Parle and as per the manufacturing process and quality control standards (includes brands, designs, etc.) prescribed from time to crwp426.13 time by Parle. It further appears that the processing activities has been undertaken by the firm in pursuance to the orders of Parle and processing would be on the biscuits out of the material given by Parle. The term process has also been exhaustively dealt with in the agreement. In view of the same, I do not find any substance in the submissions that no role has been attributed to the petitioners in the management of day to day affairs of the company being carried out in the premises of accused No.18 at Nagpur. During the course of hearing, it was brought to my notice that petitioner No.5 Parle Products Limited has appointed various other companies across the country to process material supplied by them and finished products are being sold under the brand name of Parle Glucose Biscuits and other various brand names.

24. In view of above discussion, I do not think that the petitioners are merely arraigned as accused only because of the designation they hold. It further appears from the communication sent by the respondent complainant that after much persuasion, petitioner No.1 Parle Products Limited has not supplied copy of Memorandum and Article of Association. The petitioner No.5 Parle Products Limited, while communicating the names of the petitioners, in the said letter dated 28.6.2001 informed the respondent complainant that the said communication would answer the query made by the respondent crwp426.13 complainant.