9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings against the respondents under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The scope and application of inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. The vicarious liability of the Manager and Directors of the company for the offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Summary: Issue 1: Quashing of Proceedings by the High Court The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings against the respondents. The High Court had quashed the proceedings on the ground that the complaint did not disclose any offence against the respondents. The Supreme Court noted that the complaint contained allegations regarding the visit of the Food Inspector to the shop, the sampling of toffees, and the subsequent finding of adulteration by the Public Analyst. However, the Court found that there was no clear averment that the Directors were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business, leading to the quashing of proceedings against them. Issue 2: Inherent Powers of the High Court u/s 482 The Court discussed the scope of inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, emphasizing that these powers are to be exercised sparingly and only when no other remedy is available. The Court referred to previous judgments, including Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra and Raj Kapoor and Ors. v. State and Ors., to highlight that inherent powers should not be used to circumvent specific provisions of the Code. The Court reiterated that proceedings could be quashed if the complaint does not disclose any offence or if the allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable. Issue 3: Vicarious Liability of Manager and Directors The Supreme Court differentiated between the vicarious liability of the Manager and the Directors. It held that the Manager, by virtue of his duties, could be presumed to be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business, making him vicariously liable for the offence. However, for the Directors, there was no evidence or specific allegation to suggest their involvement in the offence. The Court agreed with the High Court's decision to quash the proceedings against the Directors but set aside the quashing of proceedings against the Manager. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order quashing the proceedings against the Manager (respondent No. 1) and restored the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The appeal was dismissed concerning the other respondents (Directors), and the High Court's order quashing the proceedings against them was upheld. The Court also highlighted the provisions u/s 319 of the Code, allowing the Court to take cognizance and add any person as an accused if sufficient evidence is produced during the trial.
|
