Judgment : 1. The petitioner, P.R. Vittal is accused 4 in C.C.No.800 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet. 2. On 12.3.1988 at about 5 P.M., the Food Inspector, Chinna Salem Town Panchayat, the respondent herein, was inspecting S.A.B. Shop situate at No.76, Salem Main Road, Chinna Salem. At that time, one Venkataraman (accused 1) brought in a tricycle Masala flavoured Instea to the said shop for the purpose of sale. The Food Inspector took sample from him after complying with the formalities under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’) for the purpose of analysis. It was ascertained from him that he was working as a salesman under one Nagarajan (accused 2), who is a sub-dealer of Navadurga Food Products Private Ltd., of which the petitioner (accused 4) is a director. Asis Enterprises (accused 3) Ketty P.O., The Nilgiris is stated to be the manufacturer. 3. The sample so taken was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, who in turn opined that the example was adulterated as it contained sun-set yellow not permitted for use in tea. After complying with the other formalities under the Act, the respondent launched the prosecution for the alleged offences underSecs.7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) read withSec.2(ia)(a) and (m) and Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short ‘the Rules’), which was taken on file in the aforesaid calendar case. 4. On receipt of process, the petitioner-accused 4 had come forward with the present action invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge the following points for consideration: (1) No standard is prescribed for Masala Tea under the Act and therefore it is that the prosecution as launched is not sustainable. (2) There is no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company of which he happened to be the director at the relevant point of time and in such state of affairs, the prosecution has to be thrown lock, stock and barrel as contravening the provisions of Sec. 17 of the Act. 6. Learned Government Advocate would, however, repel such submissions. 7. 6. Learned Government Advocate would, however, repel such submissions. 7. To the first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, I am unable to affix my seal of approval on the facts and circumstances of the case. No prescription of standard for Masala tea under the Act is of no consequence in the circumstances of the case. The label declaration in the 50 grams pocket sealed is to the following effect: “50 grams Masala Flavoured ate Instea instant tea 100% Tea”. On the facts of such a declaration, it is futile to contend that Masala tea is not at all tea. Further, he is prosecuted only for violation of Rule 29 for adding the coal tar dye sunset yellow, which is not at all permitted. Rule 28 prescribes the permitted variety of coal tar food colours which may be used in food articles. Rule 29 prescribes the permitted coal tar food colours to be used in various food articles enumerated under Sub-clauses (a) to (o) there under. Masala tea, being an article of food, is not one of the articles of food mentioned in Sub-clauses (a) to (o) under the said Rule, in respect of which a permitted variety of coal tar food colours can be used. In this view of the matter, the use of sunset yellow colour to Masala tea is a refraction or violation of Rule 29, and consequently there is no merit in this submission. 8. As respects the second submission, the petitioner had simply been described as Director, Navadurga Food Products Private Ltd., situate at No.32, Desabandu Street, Ramnagar, Coimbatore641 009. For all practical purposes, the said company is a company falling with the definition as adumbrated to the Explanation appended toSec.17 of the Act. In respect of an offence committed by companies, the sub-section prescribes that if any person has been nominated under Sub-sec. (2) to be in charge of or responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the company, such person shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be proceeded against and punished accordingly. In case, no such person is nominated under Sub-sec.(2), every person, who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company shall be liable, apart from the company. In case, no such person is nominated under Sub-sec.(2), every person, who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company shall be liable, apart from the company. In the case on hand, no allegation is traceable to the complaint that the petitioner is the person nominated under Sub-sec.(2) nor is there any allegation in the complaint that he was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant point of time. In such circumstances, it is too much for the prosecution to say that the petitioner is liable to prosecuted for any violation or refraction of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. 9. In the view that I have taken as regards the second submission, it goes without saying that the petition deserves to be allowed. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner (accused 4) in C.C.No.800 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet shall stand quashed.