Brahm Nath Katju, J. - (1.) Oswal Vanaspati and Allied Industries, Ludhiana (Punjab), has filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 6825 of 1982, under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the complaint filed against it by the Food Inspector, Nagar Palika Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar under Sections 7(1), 5, 16(1)(a)(ii) and 16(1C) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and the proceedings instituted on its basis in the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Kairana, Muzaffarnagar.
(2.) Oswal Vanaspati and Allied Industries and Harish Kumar, works manager of Oswal Vanaspati and Allied Industries, have filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 6826 of 1982 to quash the complaint filed by the Food Inspector, Nagar Palika Shamli, under Section 7/16 of the Act and the proceedings instituted on its basis in the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Kairana district, Muzaffarnagar.
(3.) It was contended by learned counsel for the applicants before the learned single judge at the time of hearing of the two applications that Oswal Vanaspati and Allied Industries being a company (juristic person) cannot be prosecuted for an offence under Section 16 of the Act as the sentence of imprisonment provided under that section after its amendment by the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, No. 34 of 1976, which is mandatory cannot be awarded to it. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention placed reliance on the case of State of Maharashtra v. Jugmander Lal, AIR 1966 SC 940, and the Division Bench case of this court in Modi Industries Ltd. v. B. C. Goel [1981] Tax LR 990 ; [1983] 54 Comp Cas 835. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that Oswal Vanaspati and Allied Industries being a juristic person could not be awarded the sentence of imprisonment provided under Section 16 of the Act but could be awarded a sentence of fine provided under that section. It could thus be prosecuted under Section 16 of the Act. In support of his contention he relied on a Full Bencn decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.J. B. Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. [1975] Crl. LJ 1148.;