OMESH KUMAR GOEL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Government Food Inspector inspected the premises of Ram Parsad Provision Store, on 30.7.1992 and found Ram Parsad, the shopkeeper, in possession of 20 tins of 'Madhu Ghee' for public sale. After following the formalities, he took the samples and forwarded one of the samples to the public analyst, whose report showed that it was adulterated. Therefore, the Food Inspector lodged a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, (Annexure P-2) against said Ram Parsad owner of the Provision Stores under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On the application of Ram Parsad the Court summoned Prem Kumar Goel. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, by his order Annexure P-4 dated 24.10.1997 while discharging Prem Kumar Goel (on his application for the said purpose) directed that Omesh Kumar Goyal (petitioner-herein) be summoned. Prem Kumar Goel claimed that he had already resigned from the service of M/s Haryana Milk Foods, Pehowa, which was also accepted by the Board of Directors dated 27.3.1991 w.e.f. 1.4.1991. This fact was not disputed by any of the parties and, therefore, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, came to the conclusion that Prem Kumar cannot be prosecuted as he was no more owner or authorised person or Manager of the manufacturer of the Ghee. Accordingly the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate ordered that Prem Kumar Goel stood discharged, but, however in his place Omesh Kumar Goel petitioner-herein being the Managing Director and in charge of the Haryana Milk Foods Ltd., Pehowa, be summoned. The petitioner then filed an application (Annexure P-5) for furnishing the correct names and address of the responsible persons as contemplated under Section 17(2) of the Act. In his application, the petitioner stated that Parvin Talwar, Production Manager and Ashok Kumar Jadon, Quality Control Manager, were the incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company "Madhu Ghee", that the necessary information was furnished to the Local Health Authority, Pehowa, as per nomination and acceptance letter dated 4.11.1991 and, therefore, his name should be deleted. But, the Government Food Inspector pleaded that there is no such intimation with the Local Health Authority, Guhla. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, by his order Annexure P-10 dated 4.8.1998 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-herein. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate observed that unless and until the nomination duly made by the Company is accepted by the Local Health Authority, it cannot be said that there is a proper nomination as per Section 17(2) of the Act. He also held that the nominations were never acknowledged or accepted by the Local Health Authority, since the acknowledgement is blank and there is no signature of the Local Health Authority for accepting the same. He also took note of the plea by the Government Food Inspector that no such nomination has been informed or acknowledged by the Local Health Authority, Guhla, and as such it cannot be said that the above mentioned two persons are properly nominated as being the responsible to the company for conducting the business. Accordingly, he dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THAT is why the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the complaint (Annexure P-2), the order dated 24.10.1997 (Annexure P-4) and the order dated 4.8.1998 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record on file. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two grounds for quashing the complaint and the impugned orders. The first is that the manufacturer of Madhu Ghee has nominated two persons as being responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business as contemplated under Section 17(2) of the Act and this fact has also been informed to the Local Health Authority, Pehowa, where the manufacturer company namely Haryana Milk Foods Ltd. is situate. The second ground taken by the petitioner is that without impleading the company namely the manufacturer, the petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the company cannot be prosecuted.