ORDER
D.G. Deshpande, J.
1. Heard advocate for the petitioners and A.P.P. for the State/respondents. Both these petitions have been filed for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the respondents. The petitioners in both the petitions are common and common question was involved, and therefore, I am disposing off both these petitions by common order.
2. Two complaints under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act came to be filed at the instance of Food Inspector, Sangli on behalf of the State of Maharashtra against the petitioners and others. The ‘Magistrate ordered to issue process which is challenged in the present petitions.
3. It was contended by Mr. Raje that petitioner No. 1 was the Managing Director of Ramarambapu Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and petitioner No. 2 was the Chairman thereof. The said Sakhar Karkhana has appointed a
chemist for the purpose of maintaining quality of sugar manufactured by the said Sakhar Karkhana and the petitioners were not concerned with the quality. He also contended that in the complaint that was filled against them under section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, there are no allegations that the petitioners were in day-to-day in charge of the affairs of the said Sakhar Karkhana, and therefore, according to Mr. Raje, the process issued is liable to be quashed.
4. On the other hand it was contended by learned A.P.P. that as provided by section 17(2) of the said Act it was obligatory on the Sakhar Karkhana to furnish certain information regarding the particulars and names of the Managing Director, Directors and other persons responsible for the conduct of the company. But the petitioners or the Sakhar Karkhana did not furnish any such information or at least there was nothing on record to show that the Sakhar Karkhana has furnished such information, and therefore, either matter should be sent back to the Magistrate in that regard or petitions should be dismissed for failure to discharge statutory obligations. She also contended that the Sakhar Karkhana was established under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and as per the bye-laws of the Sakhar Karkhana (copy of which was furnished by Mr. Raje) the Chairman and Managing Director were responsible for, in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the Sakhar Karkhana and process was rightly issued against the petitioners.
5. I found considerable force in the objection raised by learned A.P.P. Section 17(2) of the said Act provides as under :-
“Any Company may, by order in writing authorise any or of its Directors or Managers (such Manager 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.”
The aforesaid provision is mandatory and it was statutory obligation on the Sakhar Karkhana to provide such information to the Local (Health) Authority. The word “Company” has been defined in section 17 as under:
“Company means any body corporate and includes a firm; or other association of individuals.”
Therefore, section 17 applies to the Sakhar Karkhana.
6. Mr. Raje could not satisfy that the Sakhar Karkhana has complied with the provisions of’ section 17(2) and has nominated some Managers or Directors or so called Chemist as the persons responsible. In view of this omission on the part of the Sakhar Karkhana or in the absence of any evidence in that regard to establish compliance to section 17(2), the matter is required to be kept open for trial Court to decide. Hence 1 pass the following order:
ORDER:
Both the petitions are dismissed.
Rule discharged.
However, it will be open to the petitioners in both the petitions to apply before the Magistrate for discharge and in that case it will be open to the complainant to show whether there was compliance by the petitioners/accused to the provisions of section 17(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by or on behalf of the petitioners/accused or by Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana.
7. Petitions dismissed.