RAMCHANDRA SHANKARRAO BASTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD advocate for the petitioners and A. P. P. for the State/respondents. Both these petitions have been filed for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the respondents. The petitioners in both the petitions are common and common question was involved, and therefore, I am disposing off both these petitions by common order.

(2.) TWO complaints under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act came to be filed at the instance of Food Inspector, Sangli on behalf of the State of Maharashtra against the petitioners and others. The Magistrate ordered to issue process which is challenged in the present petitions.

(3.) IT was contended by Mr. Raje that petitioner No. 1 was the Managing Director of Ramarambapu Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and petitioner No. 2 was the Chairman thereof. The said Sakhar Karkhana has appointed a chemist for the purpose of maintaining quality of sugar manufactured by the said Sakhar Karkhana and the petitioners were not concerned with the quality. He also contended that in the complaint that was filled against them under section 2 (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, there are no allegations that the petitioners were in day-to-day in charge of the affairs of the said Sakhar Karkhana, and therefore, according to Mr. Raje, the process issued is liable to be quashed.