FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. B P OIL MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer to be representative in terms of Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code') as made by one Muralilal Agarwala having been accepted by learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Cuttack (in short, 'JMFC'), this application has been filed.

(2.) Background facts filtering out unnecessary details are as follows :

(3.) Main plank of petitioner's argument is that the liability fixed under Section 17 on a person who is in charge of, and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business was intended to get over resort to Section 305 of the Code, which permitted a person to be representative of a company in a case. It is stated that there must be an undertaking filed by Muralilal that in case the accused-company is found guilty, he shall be liable for punishment in terms of Section 17. The stand of the accused-company on the other hand is that Section 305 of the Code and Section 17 of the Act operate in two different fields, and the controversy now raised is not germane to the question whether the prayer in terms of Section 305 of the Code is acceptable.