SWARUP JAIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for quashing complaint made by the Food Inspector in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Gauhati. The learned Magistrate in Case No. 1522C of 1987 after taking cognizance issued process under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) Mr. D. P. Bhati, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has drawn my attention to the statements made in the complaint, which runs as follows: T1...the person No.1 is the employee and the person No.2 to 5 are the partners and in charge and responsible to for conduct of their business on that day. (Italics are mine)

(3.) Mr. D. P. Bhati, referring to the above quoted passage, has submitted that no allegations whatsoever have been made against the accused Nos. 2 to 5. Mr. Bhati has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Krishan Rohtagi.1 In that case, the main clause of the complaint which was the subject matter of the dispute was clause (5) which was as follows: That the accused No. 3 is the Manager of accused No. 2 and accused No.4 to 7 are the Directors of accused No.2T and as such they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of accused No.2 at the time of sampling. (Italic is mine) Relying on the words as such it has been held that there was no clear averment of facts that the directors were really in charge of the manufacture and responsible for the conduct of business as the words as suchT would indicate that the complainant merely presumed that the directors must be guilty because they are holding their particular office.