MOHD HUSSAIN ABDUL HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who were Ex -Directors of Bhavnagar Vegetable Products Ltd. (in Short 'BVP Ltd.,'), have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the proceedings against them in Cr Complaint Case No. 132/1983 pending before the learned A.C.J.M. No. 2, Udaipur under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred -to as, 'the Act'.

(2.) BRIEFLY the relevant facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that on 30.7.73 the Food Inspector, Murad Khan, took a sample of vanaspati ghee from the retail shop of accused Laxmilal, now expired. The sample of vanaspati ghee was sent for chemical examination, which did not conform to the proscribed standard of ghee. The Municipal Council, Udaipur authorised the Food Inspector to file a complaint under the Act against fifteen accused persons including the present three petitioners and also accorded sanction to prosecute them. The Food Inspector filed a complaint on 9.11.73 in the court of the concerned Magistrate, which was later on transferred and is now pending in the court of ACJM No. 2, Udaipur. The only allegation against the petitioners in the complaint is that they were Directors of the BVP Ltd. at the relevant time. After recording pre -charge evidence, the Magistrate framed charge against the accused persons under Section 7 r/w 16(1)(a) of the Act. On 25.2.75, the post charge evidence was recorded and the case was adjourned for recording the plea of the accused persons. However on 1.10.75, the A.P.P. moved an application praying that the BVP Ltd. also be made an accused under Section 20A of the Act. The learned Magistrate vide his order dt. 17.11.75 allowed that application an ordered that BVP Ltd. be also impleaded as an accused under Section 20A of the Act. The learned Magistrate further ordered that because of the addition of the Company as an accused, the evidence will be recorded do novo. From November, 1975 to January, 1987, the proceedings and the trial did not substantially proceed because the BVP Ltd. had gone into liquidation and under the orders of the Gujrat High Court, a liquidator was appointed. Moreover, many Directors of the Company had also been reported to have died pending trial. On 2.7.76, the said Company put its appearance. On 21.1.77, an application was moved by the said Company that since it had gone into Liquidation, therefore, permission be sought from the Gujrat High Court for appointing someone to represent and defend the accused Company BVP Ltd. On 16.12.81, the Liquidator appointed by the Gujrat High Court informed the learned ACJM that the Company BVP Ltd. had been taken over by the National Dairy Development Board in pursuance to the order passed by the Gujrat High Court. On 22.2.83, the learned ACJM summoned the liquidator appointed for the said company to appear and defend the said Company. However, it was submitted by the accused persons on 24.4.84 that the Gujrat High Court did not grant permission to the Liquidator to appear and defend the Company BVP Ltd. and, therefore, proceedings against the said Company could not go on. By 12.3.87, death of seven directors of the said Company pending trial, was reported to the court. On 27.6.90, it was also reported that co - accused Laxmilal, from whose shop the sample in question was taken, had expired. On 20.8.93, the trial Magistrate ordered that since the Gujrat High Court had not granted permission to the official liquidator to appear and defend the said Company, the order summoning the official liquidator be revoked. The effect of the said order was that the said Company ceased to be an accused. The learned Magistrate further ordered that the accused would appear on 4.10.93 for recording their statements treating the charge framed on 3.1.75 was still valid and the order passed on 25.2.75 summoning the accused for recording their statements would be still operative.

(3.) MR . Naga Ratnam has submitted a two fold argument. Firstly, his submission is that in the complaint filed by the Food Inspector, the petitioners have only been impleaded as accused being the Directors of the Company BVP Ltd., which manufactured the vanaspati ghee in question. However, there is no assertion as to whether the petitioners were incharge of and responsible to the Company for conduct of its business and in what manner, they are liable for the conduct of its business so as to make them liable. He has claimed that there is not an iota of evidence to connect them with the offence and, as such, the charge framed against them, is ex -facie illegal and without jurisdiction, which amounts to abuse of the process of the court, especially when the proceedings against the Company BVPL have already been dropped by the learned Magistrate. His another contention is that the trial in this case is going on for last more than twenty one years and for this, the petitioners are not at all responsible and, as such, their right to speedy trial u/Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been offended and that there is absolutely no chance for their conviction and in such circumstances, further proceedings against them tantamounts to abuse of the process of the court and, as such, the proceedings against them deserve to be quashed.