JUDGMENT Mr. Mahesh Grover, J.: - This petition has been filed with a prayer that the complaint Anneuxre P-3 and the consequent summoning order Anneuxre P-1 by which the petitioner has been summoned to stand trial for having violated the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), be quashed. 2. The petitioner who is the General Manager of the Company, denies his liability for having violated the provisions of Section 7 of the Act on the ground that the person incharge of the canteen from where the sample in question was taken, was one Pankaj Kumar Prahlad who was nominated by the Company under Section 17(2) of the Act and in this manner, the petitioner neither has any role, nor has any accountability in managing the affairs of the canteen. 3. A perusal of Section 17 of the Act would show that where an offence has been committed by a company, the person, if any, who has been nominated under sub-section (2) to be the incharge and responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company, has to be accountable in the eventuality of an offence being committed under the Act. Where no person has been so nominated, then every person who is the incharge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, shall be liable. Section 17(2) therefore, clearly stipulates and envisions the liability of a person so nominated. A duty is also cast upon the company to intimate the local health authority about such nomination. The relevant provision of Section 17 is extracted here below :- “17. Section 17(2) therefore, clearly stipulates and envisions the liability of a person so nominated. A duty is also cast upon the company to intimate the local health authority about such nomination. The relevant provision of Section 17 is extracted here below :- “17. Offences by companies.- (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company - (a) (i) the person, if any, who has been nominated under sub-section (2) to be incharge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company (hereafter in this section referred to as the person responsible), or (ii) where no person has been so nominated, 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 ; and (b) the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the company of such offence. (2) Any company may, by order in writing, authorise any of its directors or managers (such managers being employed mainly in a managerial or supervisory capacity) to exercise all such powers and take all such steps as may be necessary or expedient to prevent the commission by the company of any offence under this Act and may give notice to the Local (Health) Authority, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, that it has nominated such director or manager as the person responsible, along with the written consent of such director or manager for being so nominated.” 3. It is evident that a company can escape the liability for the commission of an offence under the provisions of the Act in case a person has been nominated under sub-section (2) to be the incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business and in the eventuality of such a nomination, intimation has been given to the local health authority in such a form and in such a manner, as may be prescribed. In the absence of any such nomination, every person who is responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, is to be held liable. 4. In both these eventualities, the matter has to be established before the Court of competent jurisdiction on the strength of evidence and mere assertion on the part of the petitioner that Pankaj Kumar Prahlad was nominated as the person in charge pursuant to the provisions of Section 17(2), would not make any persuasive impact upon this Court for the simple reason that even this fact has to be established in accordance with law before the Court which is seized of the matter. 5. There is indeed a certificate issued by the company indicating nomination of one Pankaj Kumar Prahlad, but as observed above, even this certificate has to be proved before the Court of law. 6. No ground to interfere in the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the reasons aforesaid. 7. Dismissed. ------------------