2002 (1) TMI 1329 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of food adulteration against the company and its directors.
2. Validity of the nomination under Section 17(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
3. Responsibility and liability of directors under Section 17(4) of the Act.
4. Abuse of process of court and exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Food Adulteration:
The accused directors of M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited, which amalgamated with Hindustan Lever Limited, faced allegations of manufacturing and distributing adulterated food products, specifically "Kissan Mixed Fruit Jam" and "Anik Ghee." The samples collected by the Food Inspector were found to contain substances exceeding permissible limits, violating the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

2. Validity of the Nomination under Section 17(1):
The company had nominated Shri Suresh Narayanan as the person responsible for the conduct of its business in Maharashtra. However, the prosecution did not launch any action against the nominee but instead targeted the directors. The defense argued that the nomination was valid under Section 17(3) of the Act at the relevant time, and thus, the directors should not be held liable.

3. Responsibility and Liability of Directors under Section 17(4):
The defense contended that the complaints lacked specific allegations that the directors were in charge of the company's business or that the offense was committed with their consent, connivance, or due to their negligence. The prosecution argued that in the absence of a proper nomination, the directors could be held responsible under Section 17(1)(a)(ii) and Section 17(4) of the Act. However, the court found that the complaints did not contain necessary averments to connect the directors with the alleged offenses.

4. Abuse of Process of Court and Exercise of Inherent Powers under Section 482:
The court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be exercised to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice. It was observed that the complaints did not make out a prima facie case against the directors, as there were no allegations of their involvement or negligence. The court cited several judgments to support its decision to quash the proceedings against the directors, highlighting that merely being a director does not automatically imply liability for the company's offenses.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the orders of issuance of process against the directors, emphasizing that the complaints did not disclose any offense against them under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The court directed the prosecution to proceed against other accused according to law and allowed the petitions/applications in the above terms.