ORDER : P.S. Rana, J. Present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing of order dated 3.3.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Arki District Solan HP in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act case No. 42/2003 of 2007 whereby petitioner is summoned as co-accused. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. Food Inspector Solan/Shimla HP complainant filed complaint against accused persons namely Sunil Gupta and Krishan Chand Gupta under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. It is alleged in the complaint that complainant is duly appointed as Food Inspector for Arki Sub Division District Solan and District Shimla HP. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 29.3.2007 at about 1 PM Sh Sunil Gupta was conducting business in the shop in the capacity of salesman on behalf of co-accused Krishan Chand proprietor and 150x1Kg packets of iodized salt were kept for sale to general public for human consumption. It is further alleged in the complaint that Food Inspector disclosed his identity and issued notice in form VI to accused person and declared his intention to take sample of iodized salt against payment of Rs.21/- for analysis purpose. It is further alleged in the complaint that after completing all formalities sample was sent for opinion of public analyst. It is further alleged that as per report of public analyst Kandaghat iodized contents of the sample was 9.54 parts per million against minimum prescribed standard of 15 parts per million and sample of iodized salt was declared adulterated by public analyst Kandaghat HP. 3. Learned Trial Court issued notice of accusation to accused Sunil Gupta and Krishan Chand and Sunil Gupta and Krishan Chand filed application under Section 20-A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 alleging that packets of salt purchased from M/s Anju Enterprises Subathu through Dinesh Kumar proprietor vide invoice bill No. AE-6964. It is further alleged that M/s Anju Enterprises Subathu be impleaded as co-accused in present case. Learned Trial Court on the basis of invoice bill impleaded M/s Anju Enterprises Subathu through Dinesh Kumar proprietor as co accused in present case. Thereafter coaccused Dinesh Kumar filed application under Section 20-A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 to implead Jhakhau Salt Company Private Limited Green Park Plot No.113-14 Sector 8 Tagore Road Gandhi Dham Gujarat through Rajesh Shrivastva. Thereafter coaccused Dinesh Kumar filed application under Section 20-A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 to implead Jhakhau Salt Company Private Limited Green Park Plot No.113-14 Sector 8 Tagore Road Gandhi Dham Gujarat through Rajesh Shrivastva. Thereafter Rajesh Shrivastva was impleaded as co-accused in present case. Thereafter Rajesh Shrivastva filed Cr.MMO No. 4031 of 2013 title Rajesh Srivastava Vs. State of HP and others before Hon’ble High Court of HP. Hon’ble High Court of HP on dated 31.10.2013 quashed impleadment order of Rajesh Srivastava and directed learned trial Court to decide impleadment matter in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in R. Banerjee and others Vs. H.D. Dubey and others AIR 1992 SC 1168 . Thereafter learned Trial Court discharged co-accused Rajesh Srivastava in present case and impleaded P.B. Anadam present petitioner as co-accused in present case on dated 3.3.2014. Feeling aggrieved against impleadment order as co-accused Sh P.B. Anadam petitioner filed present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of State. Court also perused entire record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination in present petition: 1. Whether petition filed by petitioner is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of ground of petition?. 2. Final order. Findings on point No.1 with reasons: 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that at the time of offence the petitioner was director of the company but company has authorized Sh. Anil Shrimali as quality/production incharge of the company placed on record and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Petitioner P.B. Anadam did not file any application under Section 20A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 for impleadment of Sh Anil Shrimali as co-accused in present case before learned Trial Court. No cogent reason has been assigned by petitioner P.N. Anadam for not filing application under Section 20A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 before learned Trial Court. Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice to direct petitioner to file application before learned Trial Court under Section 20A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice to direct petitioner to file application before learned Trial Court under Section 20A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. Court has also carefully perused copy of nomination of persons by company under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 placed on record nominating Sh Anil Shrimali as production incharge and quality controller. Sh Anil Shrimali was appointed as production incharge and quality controller of M/s Wellbrines Chemicals Ltd on dated 4.3.2003. As per complaint filed by food inspector 150x1kg packets of iodized salt were manufactured by Allwyn Brinechem Private Limited Navaqav Bhachau Kutch Gujarat. Petitioner P.N. Anadam did not place on record any document in order to prove that Sh Anil Shrimali was appointed as quality controller by manufacturer company namely Allwyn Brinechem Private Limited. Company Allwyn Brinechem Private Limited and company M/s Wellbrines Chemicals Ltd are two separate companies. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that company Allwyn Brinechem Private Limited is taken over by M/s Wellbrines Chemicals Private Limited and same is complicated issue of fact which cannot be decided in present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that although learned Trial Court on dated 31.1.2013 impleaded Allwyan Brinechem Private Limited company as co-accused and issued summon but did not take necessary steps to procure the presence of Allwyn Brinechem Private Limited as co-accused in present case is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that learned Trial Court vide order dated 31.1.2013 impleaded Allwyn Brinechem Pvt. Ltd manufacturing company as co-accused in the case and issued summon to manufacturing company namely Allwyn Brinechem Private Limited but thereafter learned Trial Court did not use any coercive step for the presence of Allwyn Brinechem Private Limited. It is held that learned Trial Court was under legal obligation to use coercive step for the service of Allwyn Brinechem Private Limited in present case. 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that as per Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 person nominated by company is only liable and director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company are not liable is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that as per Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 person nominated by company is only liable and director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company are not liable is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. As per section 17(4) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company are also liable if it is proved by prosecution that offence was committed with the consent or connivance of director, manager, secretary or other officer of company or if it is proved that offence is attributable to negligence on the part of director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company. See AIR 1979 SC 1977 title State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. I.K.Nangia and another. It was held in case reported in AIR 1996 SC 283 title Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and others that joint trial of manufacturer, distributor or dealer for same offence is permissible under Section 20A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. 9. Fact whether offence was committed with consent or connivance of director, manager or secretary or any other officer of company cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC and same fact will be decided by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to prove its case. It is well settled law that complicated question of fact cannot be decided in proceedings filed under Section 482 Cr.PC. It is well settled law that complicated question of fact is always decided by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2 Final order. 10. In view of finding on point No.1 petition is partly allowed. Prayer No.1 declined in the ends of justice. Prayer No.2 allowed in the ends of justice. Learned Trial Court is directed to issue summon/warrant to manufacturer M/s Allwyn Brinechem Pvt. Ltd in accordance with law and thereafter dispose of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously within three months because present complaint is pending since 2007 and requires expeditious disposal. Parties are directed to appear before learned Trial Court on 29th June 2016. Learned Trial Court is directed to issue summon/warrant to manufacturer M/s Allwyn Brinechem Pvt. Ltd in accordance with law and thereafter dispose of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously within three months because present complaint is pending since 2007 and requires expeditious disposal. Parties are directed to appear before learned Trial Court on 29th June 2016. File of learned Trial Court along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith. Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC is disposed of. All pending applications if any also disposed of.