K SUNITHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is preferred to call for the record of the Criminal Case No. 367/93 'State of Rajasthan v. Manoj Kumar and others pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer and to quash the said proceedings.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this petition are that respondent Food Inspector. S. L. Santoshi, Primary Health Centre, Degana filed a complaint on 23-2-93 under Section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred as 'P.F.A. Act') against Manoj Kumar, M/s. Hari Om Partners, Bhanwar Lal, Chhagan Lal, Shri Krishna Distributors in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer with the allegation that the sample of mustard oil (Real Gold Brand) taken on 29-4-92 from one sealed tin was found adulterated as it did not confirm to the prescribed standards. Shri Manoj Kumar is the vendor and other accused persons are said to be distributors. The trial was in progress and on 31-12-97 after five years, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance for the offence against ITC Agrotech Ltd., Jaipur on an application filed by the distributor alleging that the oil was manufactured by the said company. The learned trial Court directed to summon the company through its Managing Director and Chairman. The Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer, Circle III Jaipur submitted information and the list of Directors of ITC company on 23-1-98 with the copy of memorandum of association and the articles of association and by order dated 29-1-98, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against all the seven persons given in the list of Directors and directed to summon them by bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The petitioner K. Sunitha is one of the persons in the list and this petition has been now filed to quash the proceedings against her.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The main thrust of the arguments on behalf of the petitioner is that cognizance could not be taken against the petitioner because she was not nominated under sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the P.F.A. Act to be incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business and if she was not nominated then also it has to be shown that she was in-charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. The learned trial Court has not at all considered the provisions under Section 17 P.F.A. Act in regard to the offences by companies. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on 1983 (1) Supreme Court Cases 1 : (1983 Cri LJ 159) (Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, 1995 (2) W.L.C. (Raj) 64 : 1995 AIHC 5562 : (Devi Chand v. The State of Rajasthan) and 1998 (3) J.T. 584 : (1998 Cri LJ 3287) (State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal).