P. N Goel, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 CrPC.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this application may be stated at some length on 29th of December 1975 Sri Sita Ram, Food Inspector, Nagar Palika, Chitra- koot Dham, Karwi district Banda opposite party No. 2, took sample of Arhar Dal from Raja Ram, son of Sunder Lal, Baldauganj, Karwi. THE pulse was found adulterated. Consequently a complaint was filed against Raja Ram under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. THE food inspector tried to ascertain from Raja Ram from where he had purchased/obtained the Arhar Dal. Raja Ram did not make any disclosure. During the trial before the Judicial Magistrate, Kami, Raja Ram gave out in his statement under Section 313 CrPC that he had purchased the Arhar Dal from firm Babu Lal Mathura Prasad of Allahabad. THE firm had told him that there was no adulteration in the Dal. He sold the Dal in the same condition in which he had received from the firm (vide Annexure 'I' of counter affidavit of Sita Ram). Raja Ram then entered into the witness box under Section 315 CrPC and gave statement to the same effect (vide Annaxure 'I' to the counter affidavit of Sita Ram). THEreupon the Magistrate passed order on 27-11-1976 that the proprietor of the firm Babu Lal Mathura Prasad Dal Mill, 291 Muthiganj, Allahabad and Sri L. N, Keshri Munim of the firm be summoned. THEreafter an application was moved through Moti Lal, Ramesh Chand, Prakash Chand and L N. Keshri on 24-3-1977 (vide Anneure 'J' of the affidavit of Moti Lal given in support of the application under Section 482 CrPC). In this application it was prayed that the proceedings against the applicant be dropped and the applicants be discharged. THE Magistrate treated this application as one under Section 245 CrPC. By order dated 25-5-1977 the Magistrate rejected the application. THEreafter statements of Sri Sita Ram, Food Inspector Moti Lal, Prakash Chand, Ramesh Chand and Lakshmi Narain Keshri were recorded. Later on, the Magistrate passed order on 20-7- 1977 that Roznamcha Bahi, Rokar Bahi. and Dal stock register of firm Babu Lal Mathura Prasad be summoned. It is noticeable that in this order the Magistrate did not mention from whom these documents be summoned. It is also noticeable that he did not direct the firm or any of its partners to produce these papers. It may, however, be observed that an accused person cannot be compelled to file document against him. It appears that so far the Magistrate had not framed any charge against the firm or its partners or its 'Munim. The contention of Sri Tej Pal, learned counsel for the applicant is that the Magistrate was not justified in proceeding against Moti Lal, Prakash Chand, Ramesh Chand and Lakshmi Narain Keshri (applicants 2 to 5). Undisputedly Lakshmi Narain Keshri is the Munim of the firm. Moti Lal, Prakash Chand and Ramesh Chand are the partners of the firm. It is said that the firm is a registered one and as such it is juristic entity by itself. Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act empowers the court to implead manufacturer. It lays down that : "Where at any time during the trial of any offence under this Act alleged to have been committed by any person, not being the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food, the court is satisfied, on the evidence adduced before it, that such manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with that offence, then the court may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 351 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or in Section 20 proceed against him as though a prosecution has been instituted against Him under Section 20."
(3.) IT may be noted that the Magistrate passed order dated 27-11-1976 under the above section Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was amended in the year 1976. The original Section 17 which is applicable to the present case requires consideration. IT deals with offences by companies. The term 'company' means any body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of individuals. The term 'director' in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm. Sub-section (1) of * Section 17 lays down : "Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was incharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of, the business af the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly." IT will thus be seen that the company or the firm has to be punished and every person, who is in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of, the business can also be punished. Subsection (2) further lays down that: ' Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is provided that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly." It is evident from Section 20-A of the Act that the Magistrate must be satisfied on the evidence before it that the manufacturer was concerned with the offence. It is further evident from Section 17 sub-sections (1) and (2) that that partner or officer of the company would also be liable if either he was in charge of or responsible to the company for the conduct of the business or the offence was committed with his consent or connivance.;