RAVINDRA KRISHNA KULKARNI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Pradip Bhate, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) BY filing this application, applicant has prayed that the proceedings instituted by Food Inspector respondent No. 2, which is registered as criminal Case No. 4509/2002 filed before learned Judicial Magistrate, First class, Second Court, Ankleshwar, Bharuch and process issued thereon may be quashed. Applicant is accused No. 16 in the aforesaid complaint. It is alleged in the complaint that the company has mis-branded the food product and has accordingly committed offence under Section 2 (ix) (k)and (e) read with Section 7 (ii) (v) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and accordingly, the applicant is liable to be convicted under Section 16 of the said Act. It is also alleged in the complaint that a sample of 500 grams of glucon-D Orange was taken by Food Inspector and after following necessary procedure the same was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. After receiving the report of Public Analyst, aforesaid complaint is filed against the company, all its directors as well as against the manager, as it was prima facie found that said product is mis-branded.

(3.) MR. Sunit Shah, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that so far as present applicant is concerned, he was not even the director of the company and there is nothing to show that he was enrolled as director of the company. It is submitted by Mr. Shah that the applicant was not in any way actively associated with the affairs of the company. It is submitted by mr. Shah that in fact the applicant is a shareholder and he has nothing to do with the business and affairs of the company. He further submitted that even otherwise in the complaint no allegations are made so far as present applicant is concerned. Therefore, the complaint against the applicant is not maintainable. To substantiate his say, Mr. Shah, has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and another, reported in 2005 (8) SCC 89.