SHYAM SUNDER BHARTIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL. M. C. No. 461/2008. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. seeking the quashing of complaint case No. 152/pf/da/ 07 titled Food Inspector (PFA), Government of Delhi v. Kush Kumar and others, under sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act 1954 pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('mm'), new Delhi, insofar as it concerns the petitioner.

(2.) THE aforementioned complaint was filed by the Food Inspector (PFA), government of NCT of Delhi on 30th November 2007 in which it is alleged that a sample of 'fresh Veggi Pizzas' was purchased on 11th july 2005 from a 'domino's Pizza' outlet at kamla Nagar and it was found not conforming to the statutory requirements of packaging in terms of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act 1954 ('pfa Act') and the rules thereunder. Para 3 of the complaint sets out the details of the persons sought to be arraigned as respondent accused in the complaint:

(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the seven petitioners [who are arrayed as respondents 2,3,5,6,8, 7 and 9 respectively in the complaint] that the only averment in respect of them is that they are directors of Domino's Pizza India Limited [respondent No. 10 in the complaint] and "as such" are "in-charge of and responsible for day to day conduct of the business of the company. " it is clarified that Ajay Kaul (respondent No. 4 in the complaint) is the whole time Director of the company looking after its day-today conduct of business. Ajay Kaul and domino's Pizza India Limited have not joined the present petitioners in seeking the quashing of the complaint. It is submitted that the petitioners are not in-charge and responsible for day to day conduct of the business of the company and ought not to be arrayed as accused in the complaint. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi where it was held that the use of words "as such" in the complaint to rope in persons who are directors of the company was inadequate for the criminal court to proceed to summon them. Reliance is also placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in SMS Pharmaceuticals v. Neeta Bhalla as well as in n. K. Wahi v. Shekhar Singh to contend that the mere averment in the complaint to the above effect would not sufficient to attract liability in the context of Section 17 (l) (a) (ii) of PFA Act which contains words similar to those occurring in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the context of which the above decisions were rendered. 1. 1983 1 SCC 1. 2. 2005 (7) SCALE 397. 3. 2007 (1) JCC (NI.) 112.