P.C. Borooah, J. - (1.) On January 19, 1974 the complainant opposite party Dr. A. K. Mukherjee, Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta, filed a petition of complaint against the two petitioners and five others, four of whom have been impleaded as opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 in the court of the Presidency Magistrate and Magistrate, First Class, Calcutta under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter the Act). The learned Magistrate, on the basis of the said complaint, took cognizance and issued summons. In this application the petitioners have prayed that the proceedings pending against them in the court of the learned Magistrate being case No. 7-D of 1974 be quashed.
(2.) Mr. Balai Chandra Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that the petition of complaint, on the basis of which the learned Magistrate took cognizance, on the face of it, does not make out a prima facie case against the petitioners, and as such the proceedings, pending against them in the court of the learned Magistrate should be quashed.
(3.) Mr. S. K. Basu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant opposite party, and Mr. A.K. Mukherjee, appearing on behalf of the State, have opposed this Rule and their submission is that under section 17 of the Act, a company is primarily liable for an offence committed under the Act and the averments made in the petition of complaint are sufficient to warrant the prosecution of the petitioners and the other accused persons under the provisions of the Act.;