K S OILS LTD Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a prosecution launched under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the "pfa Act"), against a company or a firm, a question, which though not very often, arises for determination is as to whether all the directors of a company or all the partners of a firm can be prosecuted and, if so, under what circumstances, such a prosecution is permissible. This very question has, in fact, arisen for determination in the present revision too. The question, so posed, brings us to a more fundamental question and the question is this: when can a person be nominated to represent a company or a firm within the scheme of the PFA Act and what is the effect of such nomination on the prosecution launched against the company or the firm.

(2.) FOR answering the questions posed above, it is necessary to take note of the material facts, which have given rise to the present revision. A complaint was made, in the Court of the CJM, Kamrup, by a Food Inspector, working in the Office of the joint Director of Health Services, Kamrup, Guwahati, the complainant's case being, in brief, thus: On 14. 09. 1994, the complainant, accompanied by his. office peon, visited the sale depot of M/s. K. S. Oils Ltd, at Fancy Bazar, Guwahati, (in short, ' the accused company') and collected, in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that behalf, a sample of refined Mustard Oil (K. S. Brand) from a sealed container stored there for sale. In course of time, the Public Analyst reported that the sample did not conform to the standard. Thereafter, the complainant obtained requisite sanction for prosecution of not only the accused Company, but also of the vendor, namely, Kapil Jha and of as many as five directors of the accused Company, all these directors being in charge of, and responsible to the said company for the conduct of the business of the accused Company. The complainant accordingly sought for prosecution of the accused aforementioned for offence allegedly committed by them under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the PFA Act.

(3.) ON receipt of the summons issued in the case, the accused Company, namely, M/s K. S. Oil Limited, appeared in the Court and submitted to the effect, inter alia, that the accused Company had already nominated, on 02. 01. 1992, in terms of Section 17 (2) of the PFA Act, one Anant Kumar, a Manager of the said Company, functioning in supervisory capacity, as a person responsible to the accused Company for the conduct of the business of the accused Company and that at the relevant time, the said Anant Kumar was in charge of, and responsible to, the said Company for the conduct of the business of the said Company, in general, and for manufacturing of mustard oil, in particular, and as the accused Nos. 2 to 7 were not in charge of, and responsible to, the accused Company for the conduct of the business of the accused Company and as there was no consent or connivance, on their part, in the offence allegedly committed by the accused Company nor is the alleged offence attributable to their negligence, their prosecution was not legally permissible By the petition, so made, the accused Company sought for an order dropping the proceeding or discharging the accused Nos. 2 to 7 from the case. In support of their said petition, the accused Company also filed a copy of the nomination in Form No. VIII. prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short, "the PFA Rules" ).