ORDER : DR. G. YETHIRAJULU, J.:— This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. by A-3 in S.T.C. No. 10 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. 2. The Food Inspector, Vizianagaram filed a compliant against the petitioner and others under Sections 16(1)(1)(i) and 7(i)2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for allegedly adulterating Vanaspati manufactured by A-4 Company. The Food Inspector inspected the shop of A-1 known as Srinivasa Kriana and General Stores, Kothavalasa, on 29-06-2001. At that time, A-1 was found transacting the business. He exhibited edible oils, spices, dhalls and gold drop vanaspati sealed packets for sale. The Vanaspati sealed packets contained 200 ml Vanaspati manufactured by A-4 Company. The Food Inspector checked the Vanaspati packets in the presence of A-1 and suspected that they were adulterated. Therefore, he purchased six packets by paying the price to A-1 under a receipt. After service of notice in Form-VI to A-1, the Food Inspector sent the samples to the concerned authorities after following the procedure prescribed under the Rules. On ascertaining, A-1 disclosed that the said packets were supplied by A-2 manufactured by A-4 Company and produced the bill proof of purchase from the Distributors. On 30-06-2001, the Food Inspector sent one sample to the Public Analyst, A.P. Hyderabad, for analysis on 08-08-2001, the Local (Heath) Authority received a report from the Public Analyst and on 27-08-2001, the Food Inspector received Form-III report in triplicate form the Local (Health) Authority, Kothavalasa Gram Panchayat. The Public Analyst opined that the same does not conform to red units in respect of Sesama Oil and therefore, adulterated. The Food Inspector received written consent from the Director of Food and Health, A.P., Hyderabad, therefore, he filed a complaint to prosecute all the accused. After receipt of notice, the petitioner approached this Court to quash the prosecution against him in the above case. The petitioner contended that there is no allegation in the complaint that he is involved in the commission of offence or is concerned with the affairs of A-4 Company. The petitioner resigned from the Directorship of A-4 Company on 28-05-2001 and the same was recorded by the Registrar of companies and sent a communication to that effect. The petitioner is no way concerned with A-4 Company in any manner. The petitioner resigned from the Directorship of A-4 Company on 28-05-2001 and the same was recorded by the Registrar of companies and sent a communication to that effect. The petitioner is no way concerned with A-4 Company in any manner. There is no mention in the complaint as to how the petitioner is connected with affairs of the company as on the date taking sample i.e., 29-06-2001. 3. The learned counsel of the petitioner submitted that there is no allegation of involvement of A-3 in the commission of the offence. He further contended that in the letter dated 22-07-2003 of the Chartered Accountant, it is mentioned that the petitioner has resigned from the Board of the Company with effect from 28-05-2001. To effect the change, Form No. 32 was filed on 25-06-2001 and the same was registered as Document No. 26 dated 26-06-2001 Hence, he is hot a Director of the said company with effect from 28-05-2001. The petitioner also filed another document issued by the office of the Registrar of Companies in Form No. 32 presented by Sri Sri Radheshyam Lohiya, wherein the date 28-05-2001 was shown as the date of change among the Directors, therefore, he submitted that as the inspection of the shop was done on 29-06-2001, much later to the resignation, he is not liable for prosecution. 4. As seen from the complaint, the product was supplied by the Dis tributor to A-1 on the basis of Bill No. 3724, dated 01-05-2001, therefore, the product was manufactured prior to 01-05-2001. As on the date of manu facture of the product, which was found to be adulterated as per the report of the Analyst, the petitioner did not seize to be a Director. An application was made on behalf of the petitioner on 25-06-2001 and it was registered on 26-06-2001 accepting his resignation with effect from 28-05-2001. None of the dates mentioned above are prior to the date of manufacture of the (product. Though the petitioner ceased to be the Director of the Company as on the date of taking sample, he was officiating as Managing Director of A-4 Company as on the date of manufacture of the product. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner was in-charge of the day to day administration of the company and on his instructions, the product was manufactured. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner was in-charge of the day to day administration of the company and on his instructions, the product was manufactured. In support of his contention, he relied on the following Judgments: 6. In Keki Bond Dadiseth v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (1) FAC 294 a Single Bench of the Bombay High Court, while dealing with Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration, Act, 1954, held that the prosecution of a person arises if at the material time, the accused was in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of the company of offence committed with the con sent or connivance of such person or is attributable to neglect on his part. Simply because the person is a Director of the Company, it does not nec essarily mean that he fulfills all the above referred requirements so as to make him liable. In such circumstances, inherent power under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. can be invoked and the proceedings against such person can be quashed. 7. In R. Banerjee v. H.D. Dubey, (1992) 2 SCC 552 : AIR 1992 SC 1168 the Madhya Pradesh High Court held as follows: “From the scheme of S. 17 it is clear that where a company has committed an offence under the Act, the person nominated by the company under sub-section (2) of S. 17 to be in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business shall be proceeding against unless it is shown that the offence was committed with the consent/connivance/negligence of any other Director, Manager, Secretary or Officer of the company in which case the said person can also be proceeded against and punished for the commission of the said offence. It is only where no person has been nominated under Sub-Section (2) of S. 17 that every person, who at the time of the commission of the offence was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business can be proceeded against and punished under the law.” 8. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : AIR 1998 SC 128 the Allahabad High Court, While dealing with Section 482 of Cr. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : AIR 1998 SC 128 the Allahabad High Court, While dealing with Section 482 of Cr. P.C., held as follows:— “It is settled that High Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters. Nomenclature under which petition is filed is not quite relevant and that does not debar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses unless there is special procedure prescribed which procedure is mandatory; If in a case the Court finds that the appellants could not invoke its jurisdiction under Art. 226, the Court can certainly treat the petition one under Art. 227 or S. 482 of the Code. It may not, however, be lost sight of that provisions exist in the Code of revision and appeal but sometime for immediate relief S. 482 of the Code or Art. 227 may have to be resorted to for correcting some grave errors that might be committed by the subordinate Courts. As one under Arts. 226 and 227 could well be treated. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the “criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. No doubt the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under S. 482 of the Code or Art. 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him and still he must undergo the agony of a criminal trial.” 9. There is no dispute regarding the principles laid down by the Courts in the decisions referred above. There is no dispute regarding the principles laid down by the Courts in the decisions referred above. However, in the present case, the petitioner was the Managing Director of A-4 Company prior to 28-05-2001 and he resigned from the Directorship with effect from 28-05-2001 by making an application on 25-06-2001. As the petitioner was the Managing Director of A-4 company as on the date of manufacture of the product and the sale of product to A-1 was 01-05-2001 and as the Managing Direc tor of the company, he cannot avoid the liability, as the Managing Direc tor is expected to have overall supervision. Unless he proves that there is another person in-charge of the affairs of the company and he is nomi nally designated as Managing Director without any work. 10. In the light of the above circumstances, there—is a Prima facie material to show that the petitioner was the Managing Director as on the date of manufacture of the product, which Was supplied to A-1 under sealed packets, therefore, he cannot avoid the prosecution. Whatever pleas that are available to the petitioner, they can be taken as a defence to convince the Court that he has not committed the offence. Whether the petitioner is liable for prosecution when he was the Managing Director of the Company as on the date of manufacture of the product is a question to be considered by the lower Court at the time of trial and decide the matter according to law. I find no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 11. Petition dismissed.