ABDUL RAHAMAN & ORS. Vs. J.D. MANCHANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two revisional applications 11 accused persons pray for quashing the proceeding of Case No. 147-D of 1974 pending against them in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta under Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) On 22.11.74 Shri J.D. Manchanda, Food Inspector, Corporation of Calcutta and the opposite party herein filed a petition of complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, outside metropolitan area against 13 accused persons for having committed offences punishable under Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Magistrate took cognisance of the said complaint and issued process against all the 13 accused persons. Pursuant to the summons issued all the accused persons appeared before the learned Magistrate and thereafter a date was fixed for committal of the accused persons to the Court of Sessions for standing their trial. In the meantime 11 of these accused persons moved this Court and obtained the two present Rules for quashing the proceeding of the said case. While Criminal Revision No. 779 of 1976 is at the instance of 7 of these accused persons, the other Criminal Revision case being Case No. 956 of 1976 is at instance of the other 4 of the accused persons. Since a common point has been raised in both these Rules, this judgment will dispose of both of them.

(3.) Mr. Prasun Chandra Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners in both the Rules, contended that as the petition of complaint does not disclose any offence having been committed by any of these petitioners the proceeding against them is an abuse of the process of the Court and as such, the same is liable to be quashed. Mr. Ghosh has drawn my attention to the petition of complaint wherein the only averment made against these petitioners is that they were either Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Director or Treasurer of the company, namely Indian Coffee Workers Co-operative Society Ltd., the accused No. 1. According to Mr. Ghosh these 11 petitioners were being sought to be proceeded against by virtue of Sec. 17(1) of the Act but in absence of any averment made in the petition of complaint that they were, at the time the offence was committed, in charge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the company no such prosecution lay against them nor was the Magistrate justified in issuing process against them. Mr. Ghosh contended that a plain reading of the said section would unmistakably show that merely holding certain official position of the company would not make them liable for prosecution in absence of any allegation that they were running the affairs of the business. In support of his contention Mr. Ghosh has firstly referred to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1974 SC 434 in which, while dealing with a similar case under the Act the Supreme Court held that "Even if it may be assumed that the business was owned by a firm or an association of individuals and Manibai was a partner of that firm or member of that association of individuals, Manibai would be liable under Sec. 17(1) of the Act for the sale which was made by her son Pranjivan only if it was shown that she was in charge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business which was carried on at the shop. There is no evidence to that effect on the record. In the absence of such evidence no criminal liability for the sale of coconut oil by Pranjivan can be fastened on Manibai under the provisions of the Act."