Case Note & Summary
The applicants, who were directors of M/s. Bunge Agri Business India Ltd., filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the prosecution against them for an offence under Section 7(1) read with Sections 2(ia) and 2(ia)(m) punishable under Sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The company was engaged in manufacturing vanaspati, margarine, and butter. On 31.05.2004, a Food Inspector collected samples of margarine and other products from the company's manufacturing unit at Udgir. The samples were analyzed on 15.07.2004 and found to be adulterated. However, the complaint was filed in court only after a delay of 35 months from the date of sample collection and 33 months from the date of analysis. The applicants argued that this inordinate delay deprived them of their statutory right under Section 13(2) of the Act to apply for reanalysis of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory, as the sample would have deteriorated and become unfit for analysis. They also contended that the complaint lacked specific averments that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, as required under Section 17 of the Act to fasten vicarious liability. The State opposed the application, arguing that the complaint contained sufficient averments and that the delay was caused by the accused themselves in providing details of responsible officers. The court examined the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, which deals with offences by companies. It noted that under Section 17(1), if a person is nominated under sub-section (2) as responsible for the conduct of business, that person is deemed guilty; otherwise, every person in charge of and responsible for the business at the time of the offence is deemed guilty. The court held that the burden is on the accused to show that a nomination was made, and in the absence of such material, the directors could be presumed responsible. However, the court found merit in the argument regarding delay. It observed that Section 13(2) of the Act gives the accused the right to apply to the court within ten days of receiving the analysis report to get the sample reanalyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. The inordinate delay of 35 months in filing the complaint meant that the sample would have lost its shelf life and could not be properly analyzed, thereby depriving the applicants of this valuable right. The court concluded that continuing the prosecution would be futile and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the court allowed the application and quashed the prosecution against the applicants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Prosecution - Section 482 CrPC - Delay - The court considered whether inordinate delay in filing complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which deprived the accused of their right to reanalysis under Section 13(2), warrants quashing of prosecution. Held that delay of 35 months in filing complaint after sample collection violated the statutory right of the accused to get the sample reanalyzed, making the trial futile. (Paras 4, 18-20) B) Food Adulteration - Vicarious Liability of Directors - Section 17 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - The court examined the liability of directors for offences committed by the company. Held that unless a person is nominated under Section 17(2) as responsible for conduct of business, every person in charge of and responsible for the business at the time of offence is deemed guilty. The burden is on the accused to show nomination. (Paras 8-13) C) Food Adulteration - Right to Reanalysis - Section 13(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - The court analyzed the right of the accused to apply for reanalysis of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory within ten days of receiving the report. Held that inordinate delay in filing complaint (35 months) rendered the sample unfit for analysis, thereby violating this right and causing prejudice to the accused. (Paras 4, 18-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution against the directors of a company under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is liable to be quashed due to inordinate delay in filing the complaint, which deprived them of their right to get the sample reanalyzed from the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Act.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and quashed the prosecution/complaint against the applicants (original accused Nos. 7 to 10) for offence under Section 7(1) read with Sections 2(ia) and 2(ia)(m) punishable under Sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, along with the process issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Udgir.
Law Points
- Vicarious liability of directors under Section 17 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Right to reanalysis under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- Effect of inordinate delay in filing complaint on right to fair trial
