S.J.HYDER, J. - (1.) THESE are two connected applications under Section 482 Cr P. C. 1973. Since the two applications involve common questions of law and facts they are being disposed of by a common judgment. Tn the district of Bareilly there is a company which carries on manu ­facturing business. The company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is known as Synthetic and Chemicals Ltd. Fatehganj, West Bareilly. The head office of the company is at Bombay. The provisions of the Indian Factories Act 1948 apply to the factory of the company at Bareilly in which manufacturing business is carried on. In the affidavits filed alongwith the applications it is stated that 2000 workers are employed in the factory. The company maintains and runs a canteen for the benefit of the workers, who work in the factory in compliance with the provisions of law contained in the Indian Factories Act and the Rules framed there under. Shri H. L. Virmani aoplicant No. 1 was incharge of the Canteen at the relevant time. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to these facts.
(2.) IT is again not in controversy, that on October 21, 1978 Shri P. D Srivastava, Food Inspector visited the premises of the factory and purchased some hydrogenated ghee and milk from Shri H. L. Virmani. The prosecu ­tion case is that the purchase made in accordance with the provisions of law contained in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules framed there under. Samples of ghee and milk were sent for chemical analysis and it is stated that the public analyst found them to be adulterated within the meaning of the Act. The prosecution states that after obtaining the sanction of the Health Authority the Food Inspector filed two complaints in the Court of the Additional Munsif Magis ­trate 1st class, Bareilly for the offences punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act. Copy of the complaint has been filed as Annexure I with the affidavit accompanying the applications. I have looked into the complaint on the basis of cognisance has been taken by the Munsif Magistrate. The prayer made in the two complaints is that the Canteen Manager Shri H. L. Virmani and the Managing Director of the Company may be prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act. The name of the Managing Director has not been indicated in the two complaints and in its place a blank space has been left.
(3.) IN pursuance of the summons issued by the Munsif Magistrate H. L. Virmani appeared before the Court. He stated that there is no officer having the designation of the Managing Director who may be in service of the Company. On this objection applications were made separately in the two cases on behalf of the prosecution on 29 -11 -1976. In the two applications which are identical it has been inter alia stated that on enquiry it has been found that Shri S. S. Verma was the present Chief Executive Manager of the Company whereas that post was held by Shri Virmani at the time of the commission of the offence. It was also stated that the name of the Factory Manager of the Company was P. Shankaran. The application concluded by a prayer that the Court may summon either the Chief Executive Manager or the Factory Manager of the Company by name in order to complete the array of the parties. On this application the Munsif Magistrate passed a short order summoning the Factory Manager viz; Shri P. Shankaran.;