PERFETTI INDIA LIMITED Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Nos. 3 and 4 in S. T. No. 25/1996 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kottayam have filed this application under S.482 of the CrPC. to quash the entire proceedings initiated against them.

(2.) The 1st respondent - Food Inspector, Kottayam Municipality filed a complaint against the four accused including the petitioners herein before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kottayam alleging offences punishable under S.2(ia) (m), 7 (i), 16(1)(a)(i), 17(1)(a)(ii) (b) and Appendix B. A. 25.02.01 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act alleging that the 1st accused sold the food articles 'Center Fresh Liquid Filled chewing Gum" to the Food Inspector which was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and accused Nos. 2 to 4 are responsible for the 1st accused to sell the adulterated food article. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused to appear before the court. Therefore, accused Nos. 3 and 4 having preferred this Crl.M.C. to quash the proceedings against them.

(3.) The allegation made by the 1st respondent Food Inspector is that he purchased chewing gum on 19-9-1995 from the shop V. M. Enterprises of which the 1st accused is the Manager and the 2nd accused is the proprietrix, exhibited for sale for the purpose of analysis and on analysis it was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the standard fixed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules. When notice was issued to accused 1 and 2, they informed that they purchased the article manufactured by the 4th accused and they gave the address of the 4th accused and the nominees of the 4th accused. When letters were sent by registered post to the nominees Sanjay Gupta and Dingra mentioned by accused 1 and 2, Dingra sent a reply dated 12-12-1995 stating that he is not a nominee of the 4th accused and Sanjay Gupta did not give any reply. Though notice in Form No. 6 dated 19-9-1995 was acknowledged by the 4th accused by letter dated 22-11-1995, nothing is stated by them about their nominee. Subsequently the 1st accused informed the Food Inspector that the Managing Director of the 4th accused is the 3rd accused. Therefore, prosecution was launched against the 4th accused company and its Managing Director, the 3rd accused.