AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 Ajit Singh is the Managing Director, whereas, his wife petitioner No. 2 Manjit Kaur is the Director of Metro Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called the Company). In a complaint under Section 16(l)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) the Company was arrayed through its Managing Director. In response to the summons issued to the Company, its Marketing Manager Sanjay Kumar appeared and gave bail bond and surety on 13.11.1998. He had appeared in his capacity as nominee of the Company, in proof of which he had placed on record a copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Company in its meeting held on 1.10.1997 whereby he was nominated under the Act to be incharge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business and was authorised to exercise all such powers and take such steps as might be necessary to prevent the commission by the Company of any offence under the Act. It was also resolved that such resolution alongwith the nomination of Sanjay Kumar in the prescribed form be sent to the Local Health Authority concerned. The nomination in the prescribed form (Form No. VIII) was duly sent to the Local Health Authority and acknowledged by it on 13.10.1997. A copy of Form VIII is on record as Annexure P -5 to the petition.

(2.) At the time of consideration of charge petitioner No. 1 being Managing Director of the Company put in appearance on 29.9.1995 and furnished bail bond and surety as directed by the trial Court. Thereafter the list of Directors of the Company was placed on record by petitioner No. 1 and as per this list petitioner No. 2 was summoned in her capacity as Director. The petitioners are aggrieved by this order and they have challenged it in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) This Court has heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned Counsel for the petitioners referring to sub -section (2) of Section 17 of the Act has argued that since the company has duly nominated Sanjay Kumar its Marketing Manager as its nominee, there was no occasion for the trial Court to summon firstly the Managing Director and thereafter the Director. He has further urged that the trial was yet to commence, as such, it cannot be said that it has been proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the part of the petitioners in the capacity of Managing Director and Director of the Company, as envisaged under sub -section (4) of Section 17 of the Act. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the impugned order and has submitted that the petitioners being incharge of the Company were responsible for the conduct of the business in the capacity of Managing Director and Director and have been rightly summoned by the trial Court.