The petitioner is the third accused in ST No. 396/2008 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg. The above case has been taken on file on a complaint filed by the first respondent, the Chief Food Inspector alleging offences under Sections 16(1) a(i), Section 2 (i-a)m and Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Rule 5 Appendix B A 17-01 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.
2. The allegations in the above complaint is that the samples of coconut oil sealed in identical packets were collected by the complainant on 17.01.2008 from the shop of the 1st accused located in Kasaragod Municipality under the cover of Annexure-B Mahazar. On analysis, the samples were found to be adulterated as per Annexure-C report of the public analyst. The first accused is the vendor. The second accused is the licensee of the shop and the petitioner has been implicated as 3rd accused on the allegation that the coconut oil was packed and marketed by M/s. Jeeva Traders, of which the petitioner is the PFA licensee of the said label address. It is the case of the petitioner that M/s. Jeeva Traders has already submitted a nomination under Section 17(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the prescribed manner and the receipt of the said nomination is acknowledged by Annexure-E. According to the petitioner, the present complaint has been lodged without making proper enquiry as to whether a nomination under Section 17(2) has been made. Since the petitioner has made a valid nomination under Section 17(2) and the same had been accepted by the local authority, no prosecution would lie against the present petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Annexure-A complaint is not maintainable against him as the company had already made a valid nomination under Section 17 (2) of the PFA Act. Hence, the present prosecution against him amount to abuse of the process of the court. In support of the above argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decisions in R. Banerjee and others Vs. H.D. Dubey and others [1992 (2) SCC 552], Muncipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Krishan Rohtagi and others [1983 (1) SCC 1] and Govinda Rao Vs. Food Inspector [2002(1) KLT 842]. In view of the above decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioner had urged for quashing the entire prosecution initiated against the petitioner under Annexure-A complaint.
4. In view of the submission at the Bar, the respondent was directed to file a statement clarifying as to whether the petitioner had made any valid nomination under Section 17(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In compliance with the said order, the respondent has filed an additional statement stating that M/s. Jeeva Traders, Ponjanam, Thrissur has made a valid nomination under Section 17(2)of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in form No. 8 and the same had been acknowledged by the Local Health Authority (Food Inspector, Thrissur) on 10.01.2008 and the relevant extract of the nomination is produced and marked as Annexure R1(a).
5. Going by the prosecution case, it is seen that the offence was detected on 17.01.2008, after the valid nomination which was accepted by the local authority on 10.01.2008. As per Section 17(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which deals with the offences of company, it is seen that where an offence is committed by the company, the person in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of the commission of the offence is liable to be prosecuted for the act done by the company. As per Section 17(2), the company shall make such a nomination of the person responsible for the conduct of the business of the company to Local Health Authority in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. In the instance case, M/s. Jeeva Traders had made a valid nomination as, contemplated under Section 17(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act with effect from 10.01.2008 and the petitioner is not the nominee in the said nomination. Needless to say for an offence detected on 17.01.2008, nobody other than the nominee is liable to be prosecuted for the act done by the company, M/s. Jeeva Traders. If that be so, the prosecution against the present petitioner is not maintainable and that would amount to abuse of the process of the court, if continues.
In the above view, the prosecution against the present petitioner alone is quashed and the court below is directed to proceed against the others only. This order will not stand in the way of prosecuting the proper person, in lieu of the petitioner, if the complainant proceeds accordingly.
Allowed.
sd/-
K. HARILAL, JV JUDGE