Ramamorthy Vs. Food Inspector

Ramamorthy vs Food Inspector

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Kerala Decided Dec 10, 2009

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/849154

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/849154
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: P.S. Gopinathan, J.
Decided On: Dec 10, 2009
Case Number: Crl. R.P. No. 786 of 2009
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of th...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 17(2) and 20A; ;Companies Act - Sections 2(13) and 20(4); ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 227 and 245; ;Prevention of Food...

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramamorthy

Advocate T. Sethumadhavan,; Pushparajan Kodoth,; K. Jayesh Mohank

Respondent

Food Inspector

Advocate Jayakrishnan, Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 17(2) and 20A; ;Companies Act - Sections 2(13) and 20(4); ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 227 and 245; ;Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules - Rule 12B
Reported In: 2010(1)KLT673

Excerpt

- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16].....vendor as well as the distributor. it was revealed that the sample purchased by the first respondent was manufactured by ssd oil mills company ltd. the request of the first respondent to the said company to intimate the details regarding nominee under section 17(2) of the act was not heeded by the company authorities. therefore, the first respondent got impleaded the managing director, who is the revision petitioner before this court as the third accused.2. the revision petitioner filed a petition as c.m.p. no. 385/2008 purporting to be made under section 227/245 of the code of criminal procedure seeking an order of discharge. it is with a plea that the company had appointed a nominee under section 17(2) of the act and that the nominee shall be impleaded as the third accused after discharging the revision petitioner. a photocopy of the form no. viii alleging to be as prescribed by the rules under act was also appended along with that petition. by the impugned order dated 15.10.2008 the learned magistrate dismissed the petition. assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of that order, this revision petition was filed.3. the learned magistrate had given two reasons for dismissing the petition. the first reason stated is that the nomination form does not reveal the full address of the nominee and the area of his jurisdiction etc. the other reason is that though the petitioner was given an earlier opportunity, he had not availed that opportunity till he was impleaded under section 20a of the act.4. going through the copy of the form viii, which is produced as annexure-b, it is seen that a depot in charge of the company was nominated under section 17(2) of the act. for correct appraisal, a reading of section 17(2) of the act would be appropriate. it reads as follows:section 17(2). any company may, by order in writing, authorise any of its directors or managers (such manager being employed mainly in a managerial or supervisory capacity) to exercise all such.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

P.S. Gopinathan, J.

1. The first respondent, Food Inspector, Thalassery, on 19.2.2003 took sample of vanaspati from shop bearing No. 12/317 at Mambram in Vengad Grama Panchayat run by one Abdul Khader. When sent for analysis it was reported that the sample did not confirm to the standard prescribed by the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and hence it was adulterated. The prosecution was launched against the vendor as well as the distributor. It was revealed that the sample purchased by the first respondent was manufactured by SSD Oil Mills Company Ltd. The request of the first respondent to the said company to intimate the details regarding nominee under Section 17(2) of the Act was not heeded by the company authorities. Therefore, the first respondent got impleaded the Managing Director, who is the revision petitioner before this Court as the third accused.

2. The revision petitioner filed a petition as C.M.P. No. 385/2008 purporting to be made under Section 227/245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking an order of discharge. It is with a plea that the company had appointed a nominee under Section 17(2) of the Act and that the nominee shall be impleaded as the third accused after discharging the revision petitioner. A photocopy of the Form No. VIII alleging to be as prescribed by the Rules under Act was also appended along with that petition. By the impugned order dated 15.10.2008 the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of that order, this revision petition was filed.

3. The learned Magistrate had given two reasons for dismissing the petition. The first reason stated is that the nomination form does not reveal the full address of the nominee and the area of his jurisdiction etc. The other reason is that though the petitioner was given an earlier opportunity, he had not availed that opportunity till he was impleaded under Section 20A of the Act.

4. Going through the copy of the Form VIII, which is produced as Annexure-B, it is seen that a Depot in charge of the Company was nominated under Section 17(2) of the Act. For correct appraisal, a reading of Section 17(2) of the Act would be appropriate. It reads as follows:

Section 17(2). Any company may, by order in writing, authorise any of its directors or managers (such manager being employed mainly in a managerial or supervisory capacity) to exercise all such powers and take all such steps as may be necessary or expedient to prevent the commission by the company of any offence under this Act and may give notice to the Local (Health) Authority, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, that it has nominated such director or manager as the person responsible, along with the written consent of such director or manager for being so nominated.

Explanation:- Where a company has different establishments or branches or different units in any establishment or branch, different persons may be nominated under this sub-section in relation to different establishments or branches or units and the person nominated in relation to any establishment, branch or unit shall be deemed to be the person responsible in respect of such establishment, branch or unit.

5. Section 17(2) mandates that the nominee shall be either a Director or Manager of the company. So the person nominated should be either a Director as defined under Section 2(13) of the Companies Act or a Manager as defined under Section 20(4) of the Companies Act. There is no mention in Annexure-B form furnished that the Depot in Charge mentioned therein is either a Director or a Manager of the Company. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he being a person in charge of the Depot, he may be a Manager having superintendence, control and direction of the Board of Directors and was in management of substantially all of the affairs of the Company. To come to such a conclusion, one has to read in between the lines, which I am unable to. Annexure-B didn't mention that the nominee is in superintendence or management of the affairs of the company. Going by Section 17 (2), I find that such contentions deserves no consideration. Because Section 17(2) permits only directors or managers who are employed mainly managerial or supervisory capacity. Since the Companies Act specifically defines Director and Manager, nomination of any other employee, who would not come within the definition of Director or Manager, irrespective of their duty or responsibility is legally not valid. In such event the Managing Director cannot avoid prosecution.

6. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the nomination so made was accepted by the local authority as provided by Rule 12B. The mere fact that the local authority had either not noted the defect in the nomination or that it was accepted does not make the nomination proper and valid, in case the person nominated is not the person mentioned under Section 17(2) Act. In the above circumstance, I find that the court below was not at all erred in dismissing the petition to discharge the revision petitioner.

7. Annexure-B would show that the address of the nominee shown as 'Depot in charge of the company'. It didn't contain the official postal address. Neither it contains the permanent address. So the finding of the lower court that the nomination produced didn't contain the address of the nominee is absolutely correct. As found by the lower court, Annexure-B also didn't mention the area of jurisdiction. In that way also it is defective. Therefore, that reason also requires no interference. In effect, Annexure-B is not a proper nomination as contemplated under Section 17(2) of the Act. The first respondent is justified in arraying the revision petitioner as the third accused. In the absence of valid and proper nomination, the Managing Director is liable to be prosecuted. The lower court was correct in dismissing the petition for discharge.

In the result, this Revision Petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly it is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2009 Same Parties Ramamorthy vs Food Inspector Same Subject Criminal Same Judge P.S. Gopinathan, J. Acts & Sections Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 17(2) an...

Criminal