P. D. KUDAL, J. - (1.) THIS application under section 482, Cr. P. C. , 1973, is directed against the orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur dated 19th September, 1978.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this petition are that on 12th April, 1976, at about 10. 30 A. M. Shri Devi Singh, Food Inspector went to the Ice Candy Plant of M/s. Mahaveer Trading Co. , Shri Mahaveerji. Tehsil Hindaun. At that time, Prahlad son of Surajmal Agarwal a partner of the firm, was present at the shop, and was selling ice candy to the public. The Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity, purchased 900 grams of ice candy from Prahlad Kumar for the purpose of analysis, and paid him 75 P. The accused Prahlad Kumar issued a receipt for that amount to the Food Inspector. The ice candy was divided into three parts and 24 drops of formalin were added to the ice candy and later on the ice candy was sealed. After obtaining permission from the Collector, Sawai Madhopur, the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Karauli, filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur. During the trial, the statement of Devi Singh was recorded on 14th February, 1978. The Food Inspector had stated that the accused Prahlad Kumar had told him that Mst. Kamal Prabha, Rattan Lal, Mohanlal and Kalyan Prasad, are the partners of the firm M/s. Mahaveer Trading Co. It is on the basis of this statement that a charge has been framed against the present petitioners also. Against the framing of the charge three revision petitions were filed before the learned Sessions Judge on behalf of the partners of the firm M/s. Mahaveer Trading Co. The learned Sessions Judge rejected all the three revision petitions on 19th September, 1978, holding that it is not a case of no evidence. On behalf of the accused-petitioners, it has been contended that there is no sufficient evidence to proceed against them. It was also contended that the statement of Prahlad Kumar to the Food Inspector Devi Singh is not admissible in evidence and is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It was also contended that no steps were taken by the prosecution to ascertain from the Registrar of Companies or from the Head of Deptt. of Companies as to who were the partners of M/s. Mahaveer Trading Co. All the four accused-petitioners were not present at the time when Prahlad Kumar is alleged to have sold the ice candy to the Food Inspector Shri Devi Singh. It was also contended that the absentee partners are not at all liable to be prosecuted in view of sec. 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It was also contended that Sub-sec. , 4) of Section 17 requires the prosecution to establish 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. It was also contended that there is no evidence on record to show that any of the present accused petitioners are either partners in M/s. Mahaveer Trading Co. or that they had in any way consented or connived to the preparation of the adulterated ice candy, no any act is attributed to them suggesting their participation in the act of adulteration, or neglect on their part. On behalf of the accused-petitioners reliance was placed on Manibai vs. State of Maharashtra, 1) wherein it was held that Mst. Manibai is not liable for conviction in view of the proviso to sec. 17 (1) of the Act, though, she was the partner of the firm. Reliance was also placed on Madhu Limaya vs. State of Maharashtra, 2 ). Reliance was also placed on Kisan Trimbak Kathula vs. State of Maharashtra, 3) wherein it was held that if the accused concerned is absent at the time of the commission of the offence and circumstances are eloquently such as to lead to the clear inference that there was no proof of scienter regarding the commission of the particular offence, knowledge being absent, immunity from conviction for that offence follows. Reliance was also placed on State of Karnataka vs. L. Munswamy, 4) wherein it was held that for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused the court possesses, compera-tively wider discration in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on the record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonably to be possible. Mr. Khan, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed the petition. He has contended that the present one is not a case of no evidence. It was also contended that the fair chance should be afforded to the prosecution to produce the evidence, and if no offence is made out, then the accused petitioners would stand acquitted, It was also contended that the partners of the firm are responsible for the acts and omissions committed by the partner Prahlad Kumar. Reliance was placed on P. R. Maheshwari vs. Municipal Council, Alwar, 5), wherein it was held that the words used in the definition to Sec. 17 are comprehensive enough to include the Directors of a Company in charge of or responsible for the conduct of its business. Respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused.
(3.) THE complaint has been lodged by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Karouli. THE ice candy has been found to be adulterated. THE Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, before whom the case is pending, has framed charges against the accused petitioners on the basis of the statement of the Food Inspector, Shri Devi Singh. Shri Devi Singh has stated that Prahlad Kumar told him that besides himself the present four accused-petitioners are partners of M/s. Mahaveer Trading Company. On the basis of this statement, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charge. This statement of Prahlad Kumar was considered by him to be an extra judicial confession. On revision, the learned Sessions Judge held that it is not a case of no evidence; it may, however, be a case of weak evidence THE prosecution has not led its full evidence as yet, and it looks premature to hold that the present accused-petitioners are either not the partners of the firm M/s. Mahaveer Trading Company, or that no criminal responsibility can be fixed by virtue of Sub-sec. , 4) of Sec. 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. THE powers under Sec. 482, Cr. P. C. are to be very sparingly used. Such powers should be invoked if the prosecution launched is wholly without jurisdiction, or is palpably false or vexatious, or, would in any tantamount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Having given my most anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners and the learned Public Pro-secutor on behalf of the State, I have no hesitation in holding that no case is made out justifying the invoking of the powers under Sec, 482, Cr. P. C. at this stage. For the reasons stated above, there is no forced in this petition which is hereby dismissed. . ;