Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

29. The facts of the authority Prakash Singh Chauhan & Anr Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (supra) relied upon by counsel for accused no. 8 & 9 are that the FI had inspected the factory of G.E.I. Food Ltd. and had lifted three bottles of Parle Bailey Aqua Water for test. The Public Analyst after analysing the same opined that the sample is misbranded and accordingly prosecution was launched against the firm G.E.I. Food Ltd and Managing Director of Parle Agro Ltd. Company. Thereafter, Managing Director of Parle Agro Ltd. Company filed an application U/s 20 A and prayed that there was an agreement between G.E.I. Foods Ltd. and Parle Agro Ltd Company whereby G.E.I Foods Ltd was permitted to use the brand / the trade mark of Parle Agro Company and a Nominee, Production Incharge was appointed by the company Parle Agro Ltd and therefore the Managing Director was not liable to be prosecuted. Ld. M.M. accepted the nomination of the Production Incharge but simultaneously held that the Managing Director was to remain as an accused. Against the said order a revision was preferred before the Ld. Sessions Judge which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, Prakash DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc. Singh Chauahn and Anr. (Petitioners) filed a petition before Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh after scrutinizing the clauses in the agreement held that the petitioners had only given its brand name and therefore the petitioners were not responsible for manufacturing and the allegations in the complaint does not ascribe any role that the appellant / company or its functionaries are involved in the manufacturing process.