JUDGMENT - A.D. TATED, J.:---These three appeals by the State are directed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial magistrate. First Class, Chiplun, respectively in Criminal Cases Nos. 623 of 1978, 622 of 1978 and 621 of 1978, all decided on 3rd July, 1981, whereby the learned Judicial magistrate convicted and sentenced accused Nos. 12 and 13 in each case of the offence under sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and acquitted the rest of the accused, who are Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Directors of the Dervan Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Dervan, Taluka Chiplun, District Ratnagiri (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Society". 2. In all these cases the Food Inspector visited the premises of the Society on 16th February 1978 and obtained samples of cow milk, and the Public Analyst reported the milk thereof not in conformity to the standard of cow milk. The Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Directors and the Secretary of the Society were prosecuted for the offences punishable under section 7(i) (v) read with section 2(ia)(a) (c) and section 7(v) of the Act read with Rule 44-B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), punishable under sections 15 and 16 of the Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after trying the respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 11 on the said charges, convicted the Society (accused No. 13) and the Secretary (accused No. 12) and imposed the sentence of R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/-, or, in default, R.I. for three months. The sentence was awarded to the accused No. 12 along in his personal capacity as well as in his capacity as a person-nominee for the accused No. 13 under section 17 of the Act. The rest of the accused were acquitted. 3. Feeling aggrieved with the acquittal of the rest of the accused in these three criminal cases, the State preferred these three appeals. 4. The accused No. 1 is the Chairman of the Society, the accused No. 2 is the Vice-Chairman and the accused Nos. 3 to 11 are the Directors of the Society. The Society had passed a resolution on 12th April, 1977 and as per that resolution the Secretary was to be responsible for the day-to-day activities of the Society. 4. The accused No. 1 is the Chairman of the Society, the accused No. 2 is the Vice-Chairman and the accused Nos. 3 to 11 are the Directors of the Society. The Society had passed a resolution on 12th April, 1977 and as per that resolution the Secretary was to be responsible for the day-to-day activities of the Society. The duties of the Secretary as per the said resolution included acceptance of good quality milk, to maintain register of collection of milk and to be solely responsible for any adulteration or misappropriation of milk. He was also made responsible for accepting milk only after its due technical examination to ensure quality. The defence produced proceedings of the meeting of the Managing Committee of the Society held on 12th April, 1977 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, and the learned Judicial Magistrate accepted the defence based on the resolution dated 12th April 1977. Taking into consideration the provision of secction 17(1)(ii) of the Act, the learned Judicial Magistrate held that the accused No. 12 , being the nominee of the Society as per the resolution dated 12th April, 1977 for purposes of the offences under the Act, the other accused-office bearers of the Society-could not be held responsible for the adulterated milk. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor Mr. J.A. Bardey fairly conceded that in view of the provision of section 17 of the Act, only the nominee of the Society was responsible for the day-to-day working of the Society was liable to be convicted. On going through the provisions of section 17 and taking into consideration the resolution passed by the Managing Committee of the Society long before the date on which the Samples of milk in those cases were taken, on the basis of which the prosecution was launched, the respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 11 in those appeals could not be convicted for the offences alleged against them. The learned Judicial Magistrate in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment has given reasons for not holding these respondents guilty of the offences charged against them, and I see no reason to differ with the reasoning given by the learned Judicial Magistrate. 6. In this view of the matter, I find that there is no substance in these appeals and they are hereby dismissed. Appeals dismissed. -----