Jyotirmoyee Nag, J. - (1.) The Rule is directed against a proceeding which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Town Hall, Calcutta, being Case No. 26D/75 under section 16(1)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with section 7 of the said Act. The Food Inspector (opp. party No. 2) on 5-3-75 filed a complaint against the petitioner and other accused persons under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the said offence and fixed 28-5-75 for the appearance of the accused persons. The allegation against the petitioners is that at 42, Collin Street, Calcutta, they had exposed for sale fancy cake an article of food which upon analysis after a sample being taken from opposite party No. 5 who happened to be present in the shop disclosed an unpermitted coal tar dye, viz. mettanil yellow which is injurious to health. Hence it is adulterated and unfit for human consumption. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, City Sessions Court, by the learned Magistrate. Of the four accused persons one happened to be a minor of tender age and the learned Magistrate by his order dated 13-2-70 forwarded the child accused Sabir Hossain, to the Metropolitan Magistrate in charge of Juvenile Court having jurisdiction to try the child accused under section 6 read with section 28 of the West Bengal Children Act. The other three were committed, as already stated to the Court of Sessions. A point has been taken in revision before this Court that the entire proceeding is void ab initio as the cognizance is bad on the basis of the petition of complaint. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have been described as partners of the firm and petitioner No. 3 has been described as the person in charge of the local affairs of the business.
(2.) It is urged that the cognizance is bad inasmuch as it is not stated which is the accused persons or if any are in charge of and responsible to the firm for management of the business of the firm. So far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned it appears from the petition of complaint that he is described as a person incharge of the local affairs of the company partnership business. But the other petitioners are not so described. They are stated to be proprietors or partners of the firm. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Honble Court reported in 1980 (II) FAC 282 which has laid down that cognizance taken on the basis of petition of complaint which does not specify position and status of the accused vis-a-vis the partnership firm of company, is bad. That must be so stated. Accordingly I must hold that the proceeding against petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 is bad and accordingly liable to be quashed which hereby do. So far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned, as I have already indicated, the petition of complaint states that he is the person who is in charge of the business the case will go on against him and not the others. The Rule is accordingly disposed of. That the records go down immediately. Rule disposed.;