ANIL AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants have filed present application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the prosecution/complaint of the respondent against the applicants and the process issued by the Court for an offence under Sec. 7(1) read with Ss. 2(ia) and 2(ia)(m) punishable under Ss. 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, "the Act").

(2.) The applicants are the Directors of the Company. M/s Bunge Agri Business India Ltd is engaged in the manufacturing of vanaspati, margarine, butter, etc. The company is duly registered under the Companies Act.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicants argued that there were no averments in the Complaint that the applicants were in charge and responsible for the business of the company. In the absence of such averment or evidence as required under Sec. 17 of the Act, no vicarious liability could be fastened on the Directors. Sec. 17 of the Act provides that when the offence is committed by the company, only the person in charge and responsible for the business of the company can be prosecuted. Nothing was there before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Udgir, showing that the applicants were in charge and responsible for the business of the company. Hence, the process issued against them is prima facie illegal.