VIDHYAWATI KANODIA Vs. LOCAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the criminal complaint against the petitioner, filed by the respondent, pending before the court of Sh.Manoj Jain, M.M. New Delhi, under Section 16 of the Prevention of Pood Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short PFA Act), as "Local Health Authority vs. Naresh Kumar and Ors." Brief facts are on 18.8.98 Food Inspector took sample of Mustard Oil from M/s. Harit Store owned by Naresh Kumar which was manufactured by M/s. Delhi Kanodia Oil Mills. The sample on analysis was opined to be adulterated. The complaint was lodged against Naresh Kumar, vendor, partner of Delhi Kanodia Oil Mills (manufacturers), namely, Kanhaya Lal Kanodia, Lalit Kanodia, Abhishek Kanodia and the petitioner. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused because she was a director of another company which in turn was a partner of said manufacturing mill (M/s.Delhi Kanodia Oil Mills). The samples were found to be adulterated being non-conforming to the standards laid down under item No.A.17.06 of Appendix 'B' of PFA Rules, 1955 because sample shows presence of Argemone oil.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner argued that there is no averment in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same to even prima facie show that the petitioner was responsible for the conduct of the business of the manufacturing firm; that it was necessary for the prosecution to show from the averments in the complaint that the case falls under sub-Section (4) of Section 17 of the P.F. Act to the effect that the offence was committed with the consent, connivance or on account of negligence of the petitioner. Reliance in this regard is placed on the Supreme Court decision in R. Banerjee and others v. H.D. Dubey and others. 1992 SCc (Cri) 412. Learned APP for State has not contested the same. I have been taken through the complaint. In cases of plurality of accused persons, it is incumbent on the prosecution to plead the role played by each of them in the commission of the alleged offence. Petitioner appears to have been mechanically implicated along with other partners of the manufacturing firm. As per prosecution own showing petitioner was a director of the company and that the company in turned is stated to be the partner of the manufacturing firm. There is no averment in the complaint to show that the petitioner was in any way responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm.

(3.) In view of above, complaint against the petitioner is quashed. However, it is clarified that if at any stage prosecution produces evidence and satisfies the Court that the petitioner or any other person has committed the offence, the Court may take cognizance against any of them during the trial, as per observations by the Supreme Court in MCD of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others. (1983) 1 SCC 1. with the above observations, petition is allowed.