JUDGMENT S. J. Hyder, J. These are two connected applications under Section 482 Cr P. C. 1973. Since the two applications involve common questions of law and facts they are being disposed of by a common judgment. Tn the district of Bareilly there is a company which carries on manufacturing business. The company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is known as Synthetic and Chemicals Ltd. Fatehganj, West Bareilly. The head office of the company is at Bombay. The provisions of the Indian Factories Act 1948 apply to the factory of the company at Bareilly in which manufacturing business is carried on. In the affidavits filed alongwith the applications it is stated that 2000 workers are employed in the factory. The company maintains and runs a canteen for the benefit of the workers, who work in the factory in compliance with the provisions of law contained in the Indian Factories Act and the Rules framed there under. Shri H. L. Virmani aoplicant No. 1 was incharge of the Canteen at the relevant time. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to these facts. It is again not in controversy, that on October 21, 1978 Shri P. D Srivastava, Food Inspector visited the premises of the factory and purchased some hydrogenated ghee and milk from Shri H. L. Virmani. The prosecution case is that the purchase made in accordance with the provisions of law contained in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules framed there under. Samples of ghee and milk were sent for chemical analysis and it is stated that the public analyst found them to be adulterated within the meaning of the Act. The prosecution states that after obtaining the sanction of the Health Authority the Food Inspector filed two complaints in the Court of the Additional Munsif Magistrate 1st class, Bareilly for the offences punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act. Copy of the complaint has been filed as Annexure I with the affidavit accompanying the applications. I have looked into the complaint on the basis of cognisance has been taken by the Munsif Magistrate. The prayer made in the two complaints is that the Canteen Manager Shri H. L. Virmani and the Managing Director of the Company may be prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act. I have looked into the complaint on the basis of cognisance has been taken by the Munsif Magistrate. The prayer made in the two complaints is that the Canteen Manager Shri H. L. Virmani and the Managing Director of the Company may be prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act. The name of the Managing Director has not been indicated in the two complaints and in its place a blank space has been left. In pursuance of the summons issued by the Munsif Magistrate H. L. Virmani appeared before the Court. He stated that there is no officer having the designation of the Managing Director who may be in service of the Company. On this objection applications were made separately in the two cases on behalf of the prosecution on 29111976. In the two applications which are identical it has been inter alia stated that on enquiry it has been found that Shri S. S. Verma was the present Chief Executive Manager of the Company whereas that post was held by Shri Virmani at the time of the commission of the offence. It was also stated that the name of the Factory Manager of the Company was P. Shankaran. The application concluded by a prayer that the Court may summon either the Chief Executive Manager or the Factory Manager of the Company by name in order to complete the array of the parties. On this application the Munsif Magistrate passed a short order summoning the Factory Manager viz; Shri P. Shankaran. The present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. 1973 have been filed by Shri H. L. Virmani, Canteen Officer and Shri P. Shankaran, Factory Manager. They have prayed that the prosecution launched against them on the complaint of the Food Inspector, Bareilly in the two criminal cases may be quashed. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Shri D. S. Tewari, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted before the Court that the prosecution launched the applicants is in the teeth of Section 17 of the Act and is therefore, liable to be quashed. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the contention of Shri Tewari. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Shri D. S. Tewari, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted before the Court that the prosecution launched the applicants is in the teeth of Section 17 of the Act and is therefore, liable to be quashed. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the contention of Shri Tewari. Section 17 of the Act deals with offences which may be committed a company under the Act the said section inter alia provides that in the case of a company if a person has been nominated in accordance with subsection (2) of that section to be incharge and responsible to the company for its business he shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence under the Act, if one has been committed during the course of the business of that company. Rule 12B of the Rules framed under the Act has been made to further the above provision. It inter alia lays down that a company may inform the Health Authority concerned in the prescribed form about the name and designation of the officer who is responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company or any establishment, branch or unit thereof. Further if no nomination under subsection (2) of Section 17 read with Rule 12B has been made then the criminal liability for offence under the Act attaches primarily to the company. At the same time a person responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company has also been made vicariously responsible for the commission of the offence falling under such category. The provisions of Section 17 of the Act are exhaustive and within their ambit all persons may be charged for offences punishable under the Act if that offence has been committed by a company as defined in the Companies Act 1956. In the instant case the company had made no nomination under subsection (2) of Section 17 of the Act read with Rule 12B of the Rules. The prosecution in the instant case should therefore have been launched against the Company itself and against the person responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. In the instant case the company had made no nomination under subsection (2) of Section 17 of the Act read with Rule 12B of the Rules. The prosecution in the instant case should therefore have been launched against the Company itself and against the person responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. It, however appears that the company has not been impleaded in the array of the accused and there is therefore clear noncompliance with the mandatory provisions of law contained in Section 17 (1) of the Act and this introduces a serious infirmity in the complaint as constituted. No cognisance could have been taken by the Magistrate on the basis of the complaint filed by the Food Inspector which did not disclose the name of the company as one of the accused. Further there is no averment either in the complaint or in the application dated November 29, 1979, stating that the Factory Manager was incharge of the business of the company. It has no where been disclosed that Shri P. Shankaran, applicant No. 2, came within the category of a person responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. The complaint under Section 7/16 of the Act against Shri P. Shankaran is not legal and maintainable for the reason stated above. May be that H. L. Virmani, applicant No. 1, was the Canteen Manager at the relevant time. The statute, however, does not attach any criminal liability against him. The Canteen Manager cannot be said to be a person responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. He has also been wrongly arrayed as a party to the two criminal cases. From what has been stated above it is evident that the prosecution of the two applicants is illegal and unsustainable even on the facts alleged by the prosecution. The result is that these two applications are hereby allowed. The proceedings against the applicants in criminal cases Nos. 694 and 658 of 1979 State v. H. L. Virmani and another) pending in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, 1st Class, Bareilly are hereby quashed.