MANAGING DIRECTOR ITC AGROTECH Vs. PURNA CHANDRA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Managing Director of I.T.C. Agrotech Ltd. had assailed the order of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar dated 22.12.1995 taking cognizance of offence under Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Section 7 thereof against the petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 26.5.1994 the Food Inspector visited the business premises of M/s. Sanjaya Agency, Eastern Market Building, Unit II, Bhubaneswar and collected samples of mustard oil, he having suspected the same to be adulterated. On observing the necessary formalities, the Food Inspector collected samples and sent the samples to the Public Analyst, Orissa on the same day. On being questioned the vendor M/s. Sanjaya Agency disclosed that he had purchased the stock of mustard oil from M/s.Sambhukumar Subash Kumar, Malgodown, Cuttack. A consignee agent from I.T.C. Agrotech Ltd. vide Invoice No. 0098 dated 17.5.1994. The Public Analyst reported that the samples of mustard oil of Sudam Brand sent for examination was found to be adulterated. The Food Inspector, on enquiry, ascertained that the manufacturer was M/s. I.T.C. Agrotech Ltd., 31 Sarojini Devi Road, Secundrabad. The Food Inspector having obtained the consent from the Joint Director, Health Services as the local health authority, filed the Prosecution Report on 9.1.1995, 2 (c) C.C. No. 394 of 1995 was registered in,the Court the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar agaihst one Ramesh Chandra Hans, the Managing Partner and Sri Shyamalal Hans, Partner of M/s. Sanjaya Agency, the Sanjaya Agency itself, the Managing Partner in charge of M/s. Sambhukumar Subash Kumar and the present petitioner, the Managing Director of I.T.C, Agrotech Ltd. The Learned Magistrate by order dated 22.12.1995 took cognizance of the offence under Section 16(l)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'P. F. A. Act') and directed for issuance of summons for appearance of the accused person on 17.1.1996. In the present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C, the petitioner assails the order, taking cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the petitioner on several grounds.

(3.) LAW is fairly well settled that in a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. a proceeding initiated against an accused at the initial stage can only be quashed. If on the face of the complaint or materials accompanying it, no offence is made out. Taking the allegation and the complaint as they are without adding or substracting anything, if no offence is made out, in that event alone, the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Keeping the aforesaid ratio in view, the present case at hand may be examined for a just decision of the case. A perusal of the Prosecution Report filed by the Food Inspector discloses that on 26.5.1994 at about 11 A.M., the Food Inspector inspected the business premises of one M/s. Sanjaya Agency, Bhubaneswar and at that time one Ramesh Chandra Hans, present in the shop was conducting the sale transactions of different food articles. The Inspector disclosed his identity and on examination of different brands of oil kept in the shop for sale for human consumption, he having suspected super fine mustard oil, mustard oil (Sudam) to be adulterated. The three items of mustard oil were purchased by the Food Inspector and from each, sample was taken and it was divided into three equal parts and each part was kept as it was originally packing conditions separately. Formalities in accordance with the rules were observed in taking the samples and packing and sealing the bottles. However, that is not in dispute. The vendor disclosed that he had purchased food articles (oil) from M/s. Sambhukumar Subash Kumar, Malgodown, Cuttack vide I.T.C. credit invoice No. 0098 dated 17.5.1994, a consignee agent from I.T.C. Agrotech Ltd. on receipt of the Public Analyst's report and after obtaining the written consent from the local health authority, the authority to accord written consent under Section 20 of the P.F.A. Act, he filed the Prosecution Report. There is no dispute that the three oil sealed packets were manufactured by M/s. I.T.C. Agrotech Ltd. But what has been assailed is that in absence of any specific prima facie finding, as to who was responsible for the business and conduct thereof at the relevant point of time, whether the Managing Director could be made responsible for the alleged adulteration, if any, found in the manufactured oil.