DULAL MANDAL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a complaint made to a Magistrate against a company and its directors for their prosecution alleging commission of offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, ('the PFA Act'), whether it is necessary for the complainant to indicate, in the petition itself, as to whether the person, who is sought to be prosecuted, as a director, was in-charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, or a bare statement, made in a complaint, that a person, who is sought to be prosecuted, was a director of the company at the relevant point of time, when the company had sold an adulterated article for food, would be sufficient to frame charge under Section 16 of the PFA Act? In the answer to the question, so raised, lies the decision in this criminal revision.

(2.) Before entering into the discussion on the question posed above, it is necessary to take note of the material facts and various stages, which have given rise to this revision. It may be noted, in this regard, that a complaint was lodged by a Food Inspector in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, his allegation being, in substance, as under:

(3.) On appearance of the accused persons, recording of the evidence before charge commenced. The prosecution accordingly examined two witnesses including the Food Inspector (PW1) and he was partly cross-examined by the defence. The case, then, came to be fixed for consideration of charge.