Allahabad High Court
Ruchi Ranj Jaipuria vs Nagar Swasthya Adhikari Nagar Nigam ... on 17 September, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:166313
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11063 of 2005
Ruchi Ranj Jaipuria
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Nagar Swasthya Adhikari Nagar Nigam Agra And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
D.N. Wali, Rohan Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Govt. Advocate
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
Ref:- Criminal Misc. (Delay Condonation Application No.3 of 2020
The delay condonation application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the restoration application.
No counter affidavit has been filed to the delay condonation application.
It absence of any objection, the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application are treated to be true, therefore, the case shown for delay in filing the restoration application is bona fide. The delay in filing the restoration application is condoned.
The delay condonation application is allowed.
Ref:- Criminal Misc. Recall/ Restoration Application No.4 of 2020
This is an application seeking recall of the order dated 06.12.2019 dismissing the application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. in default.
I find sufficient reasons for non-appearance of the counsel for the applicant on 06.12.2019 has been made out. Apart from the above, I find that no objection has been filed by the respondents. Accordingly, restoration application is allowed.
The order dated 06.12.2019 is hereby recalled.
Order on Application
Heard Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
This application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the complaint case no. 889/2004 (Nagar Swasthya Adhikari Vs. Ruchi Ranj Jaipuria), under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Police Staiton Hari Parbat, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.
It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in the present case the case the goods of Cream Bell Ice Cream were examined by the authorities who had taken a sample from one of the vendors and the said sample was sent for analysis to the public analyst. According to the report of public analyst the milk fat was less than 10% and accordingly, the same was held to be violation of the provisions of Food Adulteration Act, which was the basis of prosecution against the complaint.
On the complaint being filed summons were issued and simultaneously the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed in the year 2005. This Court taking cognizance of the aforesaid facts by means of the order dated 11.01.2005 passed an interim order in favour of the applicant and the further proceedings of complaint case No. 889 of 2004 was stayed, which order continued till 06.12.2019, when the petition was dismissed in default. Subsequently an application for recall has been filed which is pending consideration.
I have heard the counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
I have also heard the counsel for the applicant on merits of the case. It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the present prosecution could not be proceeded against the applicant inasmuch as the offending company was not made an accused in the proceedings, therefore, the proceedings could not be proceeded against the applicant who is alleged to be director and owner of the Cream Bell Universal Dairy Private Limited and in the complaint only applicant was made an accused and the proceedings were never initiated against the company i.e. Cream Bell Universal Dairy Private Limited. Accordingly, the only ground urged by the counsel for the applicant is that the prosecution deserves to fail only on the ground that the company has not been arrayed as an accused.
It has been submitted that even in the case the report of the food analyst is accepted there were deficiencies in the sample which was subject to analysis by the public analyst then certain cause of action accrued against the company which is the manufacturer of the said ice cream and the petitioner in his capacity as the director and owner should vicariously liable for any act of the company. But the respondents are restrained from proceedings against the applicant.
Learned AGA for the State respondent has opposed the petition but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Considering the solitary ground as raised by the petitioner this Court has noticed that the proceedings of the aforesaid case are pending since 2005 and the interim order continue to run in favour of the petitioner till the year 2019. A restoration application has been moved, this Court has proceeded to consider the restoration application and also considered the merits of the case. With regard to the contention raised by the applicant that the prosecution could not be proceeded only against the owner and director of the company inasmuch as the company was never made an accused, I find merit in such arguments. Further it is noticed that in the case of S.C. Garg Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 438 of 2018) similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated in paragraph no.30 of the said judgment. For ready reference para 30 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
"30. In terms of the ratio above, a company being a juristic person cannot be imprisoned, but it can be subjected to a fine, which in itself is a punishment. Every punishment has adverse consequences, and therefore, prosecution of the company is mandatory. The exception would possibly be when the company itself has ceased to exist or cannot be prosecuted due to a statutory bar. However, such exceptions are of no relevance in the present case. Thus, the present prosecution must fail for this reason as well."
Accordingly, by not making the company as a party is fatal to the present proceedings and therefore, without making the company as a party the respondents cannot proceed to prosecute only the applicant in capacity as the owner and director of the said company. Ordinarily, this Court has remitted the matter back to the authority concerned for proceeding afresh but considering that the matter is more than two decades old it would serve no purpose that giving liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh against the applicant.
In light of the above, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Accordingly, proceedings of complaint case no. 889/2004 (Nagar Swasthya Adhikari Vs. Ruchi Ranj Jaipuria), under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Police Staiton Hari Parbat, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra is hereby quashed.
(Alok Mathur,J.)
September 17, 2025
AS
