HARSHADBHAI N PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code the petitioners who are original accused nos.3, 5, 6 and 8 have prayed for quashing the proceedings qua themselves and original accused no.7 of Criminal Case No.1703 of 1996 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Kadi. The original complaint in the said Criminal Case no.1703 of 1996 is filed by the Food Inspector alleging offences under Section 7(1) and 7(5) punishable under the provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Among the accused persons, accused no.1 is joined as the vendor and accused no.2 is joined as producer and the alleged offence is in respect of adulteration of milk.

(2.) After going through the entire text of the complaint, it was submitted by the learned counsel Mr A.D.Shah and conceded by the learned APP Mr Bukhari that not a word or any specific averment implicating the petitioners and the original accused no.7 was found in the complaint and therefore the conclusion was inescapable that the original accused nos.3 to 8 were joined as parties only as Directors of the accused no.2, as stated in the cause title of the complaint. It could also not be disputed that whereas the accused no.1 and 2 are, by their addresses, located in the industrial area of Kadi, the original accused nos.3 to 8 were, according to their addresses located in far off places like Mumbai, Bardoli and Ahmedabad. It is stated in the petition and was argued that original accused no.8, the petitioner no.4 herein, is a practising advocate dealing with company matters and was appointed as Director in view of his expertise in company law. Thus, bare reading of the complaint suggests that the original accused nos.3 to 8 are joined as accused persons and consequently summoned by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class by the impugned order below the complaint, only on the basis of the fact that they happened to be the Directors of original accused no.2 and no allegation or averment whatsoever was found against them in the body of the complaint.

(3.) The learned counsel Mr Shah vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioners that even assuming that no person was nominated to be in-charge of and responsible for the company for conduct of its business as envisaged in Section 17(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 all the Directors cannot be presumed to be in-charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business; nor can they be presumed to be guilty of consent, connivance or negligence as envisaged in sub-section (4) of Section1 7 of the Act, and more particularly, in absence of even a bare allegation in the complaint. It was on that basis submitted that the process was issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, without application of mind and the petitioners were required to be relieved of the agony of facing the prosecution. It was further submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there cannot be pre-charge evidence and no stage for discharging the accused at any stage of the trial.