HARISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer is for quashing of the complaint lodged against the petitioner and the other Directors at the Company, namely, M/s Oswal Vanaspati and Allied Industries, Ludhiana, under section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the proceedings consequent to the said complaint. A reply to the petition has been filed and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners Harish Kumar, Woks Manager and nominee of the Company, was nominated by the Company as postulated under section 17 (1) (a) (1) of the Act and this being so, it is be alone who could be prosecuted for any alleged violation of the Act or the rules. The fact that the petitioner is a nominee of the Company is not disputed even in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent has also not disputed that the Directors of the Company could not be prosecuted when the petitioner is a duly nominated person as required under the law. The learned State counsel submits that there is no objection if the names of the Directors and the Officers mentioned as accused other than Harish Kumar, Works Manager, are ordered to be deleted from the roll of the accused. In this state of affairs, it is ordered that the complaint shall proceed only against Harish Kumar, Works Manager of the Company and not against the other accused persons in respect of whom the complaint stands quashed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there has been a violation of Rule 7 (3) in that the report of the Public Analyst is not in the prescribed form. It is also contended that there is a delay in the launching the prosecution against the petitioner which has prejudicially affected the rights of the Company to get their sample analysed under section 13 (2) of the Act. However, these points are for the trial Court to consider and the petitioner should be at liberty to urge them at the relevant time when the case is tried by the trial Court.