9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1061 - HC - Indian LawsVicariously liability - Misbranding in terms of Section 2(ix)(j)&(k) of the Act - Cognizance of the offence - offence u/s 16(1)(A) of the Prohibition of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - it was alleged that that label on the Barley Powder Can does not bear best before date , which is required under the Rules 32(1) of the Prohibition of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Held that - the Court finds that Cans of Purity Indian Barley were taken from the premises of Shalimar Cold Stores, a C & F Agent of the company on 19.02.2003 and were sent to the public analyst for its report and the report dated 12.03.2003 indicates that manufacturing date is mentioned on the product 7/02, but the label does not bear best before date which is required under Rule 32(i) of the Rules, 1955, so a case of misbranding and not a case of adulteration. The offence for misbranding comes under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 but inadvertently, oblivious of the correct provisions of law, cognizance was taken under Section 16(1)(A) of the Act - The company has not been arraigned as an accused in the complaint lodged by the Chief Medical Officer, only its Managing Director, all Directors, Chairman, all Administrative Officers and Production Incharge were made accused though it was an offence committed by the company. In case of offence committed by the company its officers cannot be made vicariously liable for commission of offence on the part of the company. Vicarious liability gets attracted in case of the officers of the company only when condition precedent laid down in Section 17(1) of the Act gets satisfied. Liability of the Directors of the company with respect to offence alleged to have been committed by the company - Held that - a clear case requires to be spelled out alleging and naming the particular Director responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. In the present case, no such name with such averment is mentioned in the complaint - in the present case, only the Managing Director, all Directors, Chairman, all administrative Officers and Production Incharge have been arraigned as accused naming them in the column of the accused of the complaint in a typed format of complaint. There is no specific allegation regarding individuals‟ role in the management of the company rather all Directors and others have been made accused not even a particular managing Director or any Director by name has been made accused with the specific allegation regarding the specific role in the management of the company. As the company, namely, Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd, has not been arraigned an accused as per Section 17(1) of the Act, so its all officers including Managing Director, all Directors, Chairman, Production Incharge in absence of specific name of any officers of the company with allegation of being responsible for the conduct of business of the company, cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged offence. Application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of cognizance order dated 28.07.2003. 2. Validity of sanction for prosecution under Section 20(1) of the Prohibition of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 3. Vicarious liability of company officers under Section 17 of the Prohibition of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 4. Applicability of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 5. Procedural lapses in issuing summons and warrants. Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of Cognizance Order Dated 28.07.2003: The petitioners sought quashing of the cognizance order dated 28.07.2003, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court found that the cognizance was taken under Section 16(1)(A) of the Prohibition of Food Adulteration Act for an alleged misbranding offense, which should have been under Section 16(1)(a). The court concluded that the cognizance was taken mechanically without proper application of mind. 2. Validity of Sanction for Prosecution Under Section 20(1) of the Prohibition of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: The petitioners argued that the sanction for prosecution was granted mechanically and vaguely, without specifying individuals. The court noted that the sanction was given for adulteration, whereas the offense was misbranding. The court agreed with the petitioners, finding the sanction invalid as it was not specific and was granted for the wrong offense. 3. Vicarious Liability of Company Officers Under Section 17 of the Prohibition of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: The court examined Section 17 of the Act, which deals with offenses by companies. It was noted that the company itself was not made an accused, which is a prerequisite for holding its officers vicariously liable. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited and S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla, which established that for vicarious liability to be attracted, the company must be arraigned as an accused. The court concluded that in the absence of the company being an accused, the officers could not be held liable. 4. Applicability of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006: The court acknowledged that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, had repealed the Prohibition of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. However, proceedings instituted under the old Act continued under Section 97(1) of the new Act. The court noted a circular issued by the Department in 2016, directing the review and withdrawal of non-serious cases under the old Act. The court found that the present case, being one of misbranding and not adulteration, should have been withdrawn. 5. Procedural Lapses in Issuing Summons and Warrants: The court identified several procedural lapses, including the issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants without proper service of summons, and the initiation of proceedings to declare the accused as proclaimed offenders. The court found that these actions were taken mechanically and without adherence to the proper legal process. Conclusion: The court set aside the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 20M of 2003, including the cognizance order dated 28.07.2003, as it found the proceedings to be an abuse of the process of the court. The application for quashing was allowed.
|
