JUDGMENT D.M. Chandrashekar, J. - This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for quashing the charge framed against the applicants by the Magistrate 1st Class, Kanpur. 2. The charge against the applicants was that on 20-9-1975 at about 10-30 A.M. in premises no. 122/58 Sarojni Nagar, Kanpur, they were selling and storing for sale ice cream, a sample of which was disclosed on analysis to be adulterated. The charge was for an offence under section 7 read with section 16(i)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 3. Shri Ram Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, contended that the complaint did not disclose that applicant no. 1 Megh Raj, was incharge of the business or was responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm when the Food Inspector took the sample of ice cream for analysis and that hence no charge could be framed against Megh Raj, Shri singh relied on the following observation of the Supreme Court in Smt. Manibai v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 S.C. 434 . "Even if it may be assumed that the business was owned by a firm or an association of individual and Manibai was a partner of that firm or member of that association of individuals, Manibai would be liable under section 17(1) of the Act for the sale which was made by her son Pranjiwan only if it was shown that she was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business which was carried on at the shop." 4. It is too premature a stage to examine whether there is any evidence about Megh Raj being incharge of or responsible for, the business of the firm, M/S Boby Ice Cream Co. When the sample of ice cream was taken by the Food Inspector. It is open to him to raise at an appropriate stage the plea of absence of such evidence and even to adduce evidence in his defence to prove that he was not in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of the business of the firm at that time. Hence, at this stage the charge cannot be quashed. 5. Shri Singh did not urge anything regarding the charge against applicants nos. 2 and 3. 6. In the result this application fails and is dismissed. Hence, at this stage the charge cannot be quashed. 5. Shri Singh did not urge anything regarding the charge against applicants nos. 2 and 3. 6. In the result this application fails and is dismissed. But I should not be understood as having expressed any opinion as to the merits of the case against Megh Raj.