Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 211 (MP)

YOGESH CHANDRA v. STATE OF M. P.

2004-03-04

S.K.PANDE

body2004
ORDER S.K. Pande, J. By this petition u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code, petitioners request for quashing of proceedings in Criminal case No. 246/98 pending before MFC, Jabalpur. ITC Agro-Tech Limited, Hyderabad used to manufacture edible oils. Petitioners Yogesh Chandra and Kishanlal respectively were its Chairman and Vice-Chairman. On 18-8-1994, Food Inspector visited the shop of Kamal Kumar and Chandra Prakash known as "Chandrakala Sweets". The Sundrop edible oil was kept for preparation of edible iteMs. The Food Inspector obtained a sample and as required sent a part of it to the public analyst. As per report of the public analyst, the sample aforesaid was not clear in appearance and contained suspend matter and sediment, as such it was adulterated. While obtaining the sample, the container of the Sundrop oil was inspected by the Food Inspector. It contained the description of ITC Agro-Tech Limited, 31, Sarojini Devi Road, 1 Sikandrabad (A.P.). On the basis aforesaid, the Food Inspector filed a complaint u/s 7 / 16 P.F.A. Act (Annexure 'A') against Kamal Kumar, Chandra Prakash and petitioners respectively Chairman and Vice-Chairman of ITC Agro-Tech Limited, Sikandrabad. The MFC having registered Criminal Case No. 246/98, directed issuance of process against the petitioners. It is contended that petitioners being Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Company concerned were not directly responsible for manufacture and quality control of the product. No enquiry has been made from the company as to the authenticity of the container said to have been kept by Kamal Kumar and Chandra Prakash for preparation of edible items. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Others, dealing with the prosecution of Directors and Managers of the company, it has been held: Proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers u/s 482. Raj Kapoor and Others Vs. State and Others, ; Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others, and Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha Vs. Raj Kapoor and Others Vs. State and Others, ; Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others, and Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar, , Foil: (Para 10) In the instant case the complaint clearly contains the allegations regarding the sample taken by the Inspector from a shop which was sent to the Public Analyst, was manufactured by the Company in question and that the Public Analyst found the sample to be adulterated. The complaint was filed against the Company, its Directors and the Managers. So far as the Directors are concerned, there is not even a whisper nor a shred of evidence nor anything to show, apart from the presumption drawn by the complainant, that there is any act committed by the Directors from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that they could also be vicariously liable. In these circumstances, therefore it can be said that no case against the Directors has been made out ex-facie on the allegations made in the complaint and the proceedings against them were rightly quashed by the High Court. (1980) 1 FAC 419 (Del), Affirmed. (Para 15) However, the Manager of the Company who is directly incharge of its affairs, could not fall in the same category as the Directors. It could not be reasonably argued that no case is made out against the Manager because from the very nature of his duties it is manifest that he must be in the knowledge about the affairs of the sale and manufacture of the disputed sample. From the very nature of his duties it can be safely inferred that the Manager would undoubtedly be vicariously liable for the offence; vicarious liability being an incident of an offence under the Act. Hence the order of the High Court quashing the proceedings against the Manager is liable to be set aside. (1980) 1 FAC 419 (Del), Reversed. (Paras 13, 15, 16,20) In the instant case, the Food Inspector at the relevant time of obtaining the sample for Sundrop Oil from the container, did not obtain a declaration to the effect that it was purchased and stored in the same condition. The voucher of the said purchase was also not obtained from the person concerned. No enquiry was made to the effect that the container of the Sundrop Oil in fact was a product of the company concerned. The voucher of the said purchase was also not obtained from the person concerned. No enquiry was made to the effect that the container of the Sundrop Oil in fact was a product of the company concerned. Even otherwise, the Manager, (Production - Quality Control and Marketing) alone can be said to be the person responsible for breach of provisions of law and rule relating to PFA Act. Petitioners Yogesh Chandra and Kishanlal being Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the company cannot be said to be responsible for Production - Quality Control and Marketing of the Company. Consequently further proceedings of Criminal case No. 246/98 against the petitioners would be abuse of process of Court and deserves to be quashed. Allowing the petition u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code, proceedings of criminal case No. 246/98, pending before MFC, Jabalpur are quashed. Final Result : Allowed