Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)Section 7 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi And Others on 1 December, 1982
On a careful perusal of the complaints lodged by the
Food Inspector under the Act it is evident that intimation
regarding the nomination in favour of H. Dayani and Dr.
Nirmal Sen had been communicated to the Food Inspector
before the complaints came to be lodged. This is evident
from the averments made in the respective complaints. The
nomination
231
was, however, not acted upon by the complainant on the
ground that it was incomplete. It was , therefore, said in
the absence of a valid nomination from the concerned company
the Directors of the company were liable to be proceeded
against and punished on proof of the charge levelled against
them in the complaint. It will thus be seen that there is
no allegation in the complaint which would bring the case
within the mischief of section 17 (4) of the Act. There is
no allegation in the complaint that the offence was
committed with the consent/connivance/negligence of the
Directors, other than the nominated person, who were
impleaded as co-assued. We are, therefore, satisfied that
the allegations in the complaint do not make out a case
under sub-section (4) of section 17 of the Act. That being
so, the inclusion of the co-accused other than the company
and the nominated person as the persons liable to be
proceeded against and punished cannot be justified. As held
by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram
Kishan Rohtagi & Ors., [1983] 1 SCR 884 where the
allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute any
offence, no process can be issued against the co-accused
other than the company and the nominated person and the High
Court would be justified in exercising its inherent
jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 to quash the order passed by the Magistrate
taking cognizance of the offence against such co-accused.
1