JUDGMENT S.K. Kaul, J. - This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. The facts giving rise to this petition, in brief, are that on 2nd July, 1978 Sri R. K. Srivastava, Food Inspector, visited the canteen of the State Bank of India Lucknow Main Branch. He took, sample of the milk that was sold there. Sri R. K. Kapoor, Canteen Manager, petitioner No. 3, refused to sell the milk and also refused to take price for the same. The sample was sent to public Analyst for report. On receipt of the report of Public Analyst a complaint was moved before the competent Magistrate. The Magistrate took cognizance of this case and summoned the petitioners. 2. The contention before me is that the canteen was being run by the bank for the welfare of its employees at no profit no loss basis and no sale could be made to outsiders ; It was also urged that as Sri N. Aggarwal, petitioner No. 1, was only an ex officio president of the canteen committee, while Sri O. N. Saraswat was ex officio Secretary of the canteen committee, they had nothing to do with the actual running of the canteen and they should not have been asked to stand their trial. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Assistant Government Advocate. It would not be proper on my part to enter into the merits or demerits of this case. The fact, however, remains that Sri N. Aggarwal was officio President of the canteen committee while Sri O.N. Saraswat was ex officio Secretary of the canteen committee. They merely held offices by virtue of their position in the canteen committee and they cannot be said to be in any way responsible for selling either tea or coffee at the aforesaid canteen. No offence can be said to have been committed by them under Food Adulteration Act. 4. The case of R.K. Kapoor, however, stand on a different footing. He is admittedly the canteen Manager and on the relevant date it was he who was present when the Food Inspector went to the canteen to take sample. 5. I would, therefore, allow this petition in this way that proceeding against Sri N. Aggarwal petitioner No. 1 and Sri O.N. Saraswat petitioner No. 2 are hereby quashed. 6. He is admittedly the canteen Manager and on the relevant date it was he who was present when the Food Inspector went to the canteen to take sample. 5. I would, therefore, allow this petition in this way that proceeding against Sri N. Aggarwal petitioner No. 1 and Sri O.N. Saraswat petitioner No. 2 are hereby quashed. 6. The petition of R.K. Kapoor petitioner No. 3, however, is rejected. Proceedings can go on against him in accordance with law.