JUDGMENT 1. - These are two applications under section 482 Cr.P.C., in which it has been prayed that the prosecution of the applicant under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), be quashed. 2. The applicant is said to be the Manager, Girdhar Agencies, Super Market Compound, Jodhpur. The Food Inspector, Municipal Council, Jodhpur, visited the said establishment on 3-6-74. In Criminal Case No. 271/74 the accusation is that the applicant Navin Chander was selling Fanta Sweetened and coloured carbonated water in bottles. The declaration of the permitted colour and preservative was not legible. It was found that adhesive declaratory label on the bottles were not proper and thus a contravention was made by the manufacturer Messrs. Jai Drinks Private Ltd., Jaipur. The two Fanta bottles were seized and they were packed and sealed. 3. In Criminal Case No. 366/74 the accusation is that the applicant was selling unsweetened carbonated water (Soda). The Food Inspector purchased 9 bottles of the unsweetened carbonated water (Soda). The sample taken was divided into three parts and one of the parts was sent for chemical examination, on which it was found that it is adulterated under clause (f) of sub-section (i) of section 2 of the Act. The complaint was also presented against Smt. Girdbar Kumari, Jitendra Singh and Proprietor and Manufacturer Jai Drinks Private Ltd., Jaipur. 4. It is said that the cases against Smt. Girdhar Kumari and Jitendra Singh were withdrawn on an application presented by the Assistant Public Prosecutor vide order dated 21-2-77. Thereafter on 9-5-77 in both the cases an application was moved on behalf of the present applicant Navin chander that the proceedings against him be dropped and the complaint be dismissed against him. It was stated that continuance of the proceedings against the applicant is illegal. The liability of the applicant arises only when he is prosecuted along-with the company in terms of section 17 of the Act of which he is alleged to be the Manager. This application was heard by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and was rejected by the impugned order. 5. In case No. 271/74 the applicant has already been charged, whereas in Case No. 366/74 prosecution evidence before the charge has not yet been recorded. Thus, so far as Criminal Misc. This application was heard by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and was rejected by the impugned order. 5. In case No. 271/74 the applicant has already been charged, whereas in Case No. 366/74 prosecution evidence before the charge has not yet been recorded. Thus, so far as Criminal Misc. Petition No. 12/78 is concerned it may be stated that it would be open to the applicant to argue that no charge can be framed, as he is not liable for the commission of any offence in the absence of prosecution of the firm Girdhar Agencies. 6. The only question which emerges for consideration is whether in the absence of the proprietors of the firm Girdhar Agencies the Manager can be prosecuted under section 17 of the Act. The Criminal liability is fastened on the company as well as on all those persons who are incharge of and are responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. Ex facie it is not borne out from the language of section 17 that for the prosecution of all those persons prosecution of the company is a must. I have not been shown any law to the effect that the persons who are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, cannot be prosecuted in the absence of the prosecution of the company, as explained in section 17 of the Act, which includes a firm or other association of individuals. Withdrawal of the prosecution against the proprietors of the firm, namely, Smt. Girdhar Kumari and Jitendra Singh, is not a ground for dropping of the proceedings against the Manager of the firm, the present applicant. I need not express any opinion on merits, as the same would depend on evidence as to whether the applicant was in charge of or responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. 7. Notwithstanding what has been expressed above I may observe that the said contention, namely that the applicant cannot be prosecuted in the absence of the prosecution of the Firm Girdhar Agencies would be open to the applicant to be raised at the final hearing and at this stage, I do not consider it proper to interfere with the impugned orders under section 482, Cr. P.C., so the applications are hereby dismissed.Applications dismissed. *******