Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. S.S. Brar. Quality Control Manager of M/s. Suraj Solvent & Vanaspati Industries Limited, Khippanwalia has filed this petition to challenge the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa whereby two applications moved by him for recalling the non-bailable warrants of arrest against the Managing Director of the Company and dropping all proceedings against him were dismissed. 2. The complaint under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was filed by the Railway Food Inspector, Northern Railways, Jind Junction against Jatinder Kumar Laxmi Narain (Railway canteen contractors) at Railway Station, Budhlada and Managing Director of M/s Suraj Solvent and Vanaspati Industries Limited on the allegation that on October 26, 1998 Jatinder Kumar was found in possession of six packets of Angan Vanaspati for preparing parkoras for sale at the Railway Station. Sample of the vanaspati was purchased as per the prescribed procedure, divided into three equal parts and wrapped in thick paper, which was secured by means of strong twine. One packet was sent for analysis to Public Analyst, Haryana at Chandigarh. The other two packets were not specified as required under Clause (e) and (f) of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on the basis of the above report a complaint was filed against the above mentioned three individuals. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no Managing Director or officer of a company can be prosecuted unless the company is also arrayed as an accused. However, the nominated person can be prosecuted but in the present case the petitioner was not the Managing Director though he was the nominated person of the company. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress on the fact that unless the petitioner is arrayed as an accused he could riot be summoned and tried because in the complaint the accused named is the Managing Director of M/s. Suraj Solvent & Vanaspati Industries Limited and not the nominated. 4. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is misplaced because the petitioner even though not the Managing Director of the Company is all the same the Quality Control Manager, who has been so nominated by the Company and it has been quite clearly so stated in the notice nominating him in this regard. 4. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is misplaced because the petitioner even though not the Managing Director of the Company is all the same the Quality Control Manager, who has been so nominated by the Company and it has been quite clearly so stated in the notice nominating him in this regard. A copy of the Form VIII has been annexed herewith as Annexure P-3. The petitioner being the nominated person can be arrested as an accused and tried under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of the proceedings is baseless and deserves to be dismissed It is ordered accordingly.