CHANDAK Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, came up before us on reference doubting the correctness of the decision in Damodaran v. Abdulla Kunhi ( 1987 (2) KLT 838 ).

(2.) First respondent, Food Inspector, prosecuted the second respondent for having sold adulterated skimmed milk powder. Second respondent produced warranty for having purchased the article from third respondent, a wholesale dealer of the manufacturing concern, 'Foremost Dairies', Bombay, and applied to implead him. He was impleaded as second accused. On his application, supported by production of the invoice received from 'Foremost Dairies', the fourth respondent and later the petitioners were impleaded as accused 3 to 8. This order and all further proceedings against the petitioners are sought to be quashed on various grounds in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court.

(3.) Petitioners admit that 'Foremost Dairies' (second petitioner), represented by its Chairman (sixth petitioner) and Chief Executive (first petitioner), is the manufacturing concern of the product and the third respondent is its wholesale dealer. It is from this wholesale dealer that the second respondent purchased the food article sold by him. 'Foremost Dairies' is admittedly a public limited company. Under S.17, when an offence under the Act is committed by a company, liability thereof falls on the company. In addition, under S.17(1)(a), subject to the proviso and sub-section (2), the person, if any, who has been nominated under sub-section (2) to be in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business (the person responsible) is also having personal liability. It is not disputed that at the time of transaction involved in this case the fifth respondent was the person responsible even though now he is out of service and the fifth petitioner was appointed in his place. The first contention of the petitioners is that even if the company is liable to be proceeded in the present case as manufacturer, the only person who could have been made an accused is the fifth respondent and nobody else.