Allowed

Ms Prime Chem Oil Ltd.and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC3 Feb 2012CRLMP/97/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners, who are directors of a company, held that their prosecution is impermissible under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act since a valid nominee was appointed and no allegations were made directing them to daily affairs. The matter was remanded to verify the nominee's validity.

What did the court decide?

Misc. petition allowed; proceedings quashed and remanded to Magistrate to examine validity of nomination before dropping proceedings against directors.

Ms Prime Chem Oil Ltd.and Ors. Vs State — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 97/2008 (Ms Prime Chem Oil Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan)

¶3

DATE OF ORDER : 03.02.2012

¶4

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶5

Mr. Anil Khanna, for the petitioners. Mr. A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor.

¶6

The present misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings arising out of complaint bearing No.90/99 qua the petitioners pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner.

¶7

Assailing the proceedings going on against the petitioners, learned counsel submits that Ms Prime Chem Oil Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are the Directors of the Company. Learned counsel submits that the Company has nominated one Shri Niranjan Sharma to be its nominee under Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 after having taken the proper resolution which has also been duly accepted by the Local Health Authority.

¶8

Learned counsel submits that in order to prosecute the Directors of the company, there has to be a specific allegation in the complaint that the Directors sought to be prosecuted despite the nomination were also responsible for the day to day affairs of the Company. Thus, learned counsel submits that in the absence of any such allegation, the prosecution of the petitioners is impermissible.

¶9

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the misc. petition but not in a position to dispute the fact that the nomination has been made by the petitioner – Company, which

¶10

¶11

was duly accepted by the Local Health Authority.

¶12

In the opinion of this Court, the prosecution of the petitioners Nos.2 and 3, who are the Directors of the Company is absolutely impermissible on both the grounds, firstly, there is no allegation in the complaint that the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 were responsible for the day to day affairs of the Company and secondly, because the Company had already appointed its nominee under Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and looking to the existence of such a nomination, the prosecution of the Directors is absolutely impermissible as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R. Banerjee and Others Vs. H.D. Dubey and Others, reported in 1992 (1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 128.

¶13

Resultantly, this misc. petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate, who shall first examine as to whether the nomination relied upon by the petitioners is a valid nomination. In the event of the nomination being found to be valid, the learned Magistrate shall record a finding thereupon and then he shall drop the proceedings as against the petitioners, who are the Directors of the Company and proceedings shall be initiated against the nominee.

¶14

The petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are directed to appear before the learned trial court within a period of four weeks from today and then necessary enquiry in relation to the validity of the nomination shall be considered.

¶15

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

¶16

ms rathore

Ms Prime Chem Oil Ltd.and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Prime Chem Oil Ltd.and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar Khemani and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Laxman Singh Vs State and Anr.

Gopal Lal Sharma Vs State

Harish Chandra Vs State and Anr.

Surendra Kumar and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Sharwan Ram and Anr. Vs State