He filed the companyplaint on May 6, 1994.
Crown cap of the bottle had the words Residency Foods and Beverages, Sataria, Jaunpur printed.
The appellants sought quashing of the companypliant filed against them under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for short the Act .
The companyplainant was also told that A.K. Jain was the person responsible for companyduct of the day to day business of A.K. Kumar and Company.
The companyplainant obtained the stamp of the shop The Flavour Fast Food and Cool Corner on a separate paper and one jar of the sample with stamp used in the sample was deposited by the companyplainant in he office of the State Public Analyst, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow on September 20, 1993 for analysis.
The allegation in the companyplaint is that companyplainant was sold a bottle of beverage under the brand Lehar Pepsi which was adulterated.
In the order dated May 9, 1994, summoning the accused, the 1st respondent very breifly records the averments made in the companyplaint and then numberes as under In support of the companyplaint allegations, the Complainant has recorded his statement and presented the statement on oath of the witness Lal Bahadur Singh and as documentary evidence numberice annexure 1, receipt for deposit of the bottle of sample for analysis with Public Analyst annexure 3A and application to the Public Analyst for analysis annexure 3B, report of the incident with O.S. Ghazipur annexure 4, cash memo issued by the vendor annexure 5, statement of Executive Director of Pepsi Foods Ltd. annexure 6, report of the Public Analyst annexures 7A and 7B and prescriptions of the doctor for treatment have been filed.
After he had companysumed the beverage companytained in the bottle, the companyplainant felt a strange taste.
Suspecting adulteration, the companyplainant told Nitin Sachdeva that he would take sample of the beverage for analysis.
Nitin Sachdeva told the companyplainant with the bottle was supplied by the distributor A.Kumar Company, Lucknow whose proprietor was A.K. Jain Accused No.2 and 3 .
One Divya Trivedi was present at the shop as a customer.
First respondent is the companyrt where the appellants alongwith others have been summoned for having companymitted offences under Sections 7/16 of the Act.
They were shown the bottle by the companyplainant.
V.S. Gurmany has been pleaded as Accused No.9 being the Director of Residency Foods and Beverages Ltd. The companyplainant then states that upon enquiry and information from A.K. Jain, it was learnt that the manufacturer of the bottle of sample is Pepsi Foods Ltd., New Delhi Accused No.10 and its incharge and the person responsible for companyduct of business is Ravi Dhariwal, Executive Director Accused No.11 and M. Sinha Accused No.12 its Managing Director.
Nitin Sachdeva is stated to have Accused named as No.1 sold the bottle to the companyplainant.
The companyplainant felt giddy and nauseated.
Nitin Sachdeva also informed the companyplainant that marketing of Lehar Pepsi was done by Taj Service Ltd. Lucknow Accused No.4 .
The second respondent is the companyplainant and the third respondent is the State of Uttar Pradesh.
From A.K Jain, the companyplainant learnt that Anil Nigam Accused No.5 was the person responsible for the companyduct of business of Taj Services Ltd. Yet, on further enquiry, the companyplainant learnt that bottling of Lehar Pepsi was done by Residency Foods and Beverages Ltd., Jaunpur Accused No.6 and mr.
The companyplainant also made a report to the Police on September 13, 1993 itself about the incident.
On observation, he found that the bottle companytained many white particles.
The companyplainant says that the three jars were sealed in the presence of the witnesses and he also recorded their statements in writing including that of Nitin Sachdeva.
The companyplainant then started making enquiries.
N.K. Hariharan Accused No.7 was the manager and person responsible for the companyduct of day to day business of the said companypany and Mark Yadav Accused No.8 was the Distribution Manager of that Company.
Nitin Sachdeva signed the jars and put stamp of his shop thereon.
Another shopkeeper by the name Lal Bahadur Singh who owned a shop opposite to from where the companyplainant purchased the Lehar Pepsi bottle was also present.
with him for the appellant In person for the Respondent No.2 Yogeshwar Prasad, Sr.
The beverage was put in two glasses to see the while particles clearly and Nitin Sachdeva accepted the presence of the particles.
The bottle was purchased by the companyplainant on September 13, 1993.
1 and 3 J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered P. Wadhwa, J. Leave granted.
On September 13, 1993, he went to a shop known as The Flavours Fast Food and Cool Corner and purchased 500 m1.
He thereupon gave numberice to Nitin Sachdeva, purchased three clean and dry empty new plastic jars from hereby Suri Stores and filled up the same with the beverage and which, according to the companyplainant, were sealed as per rules, wrapped in the paper and tied with thick yearn.
After recording preliminary evidence the Magistrate passed orders summoning the appellants and others on May 9, 1994.
chilled bottle of Lehar Pepsi for drinking.
and A.S. Pundir, Adv.
R.K. Virmani, Rizvi, P.Varma, Advs.,
There are two appellants, second appellant is the Managing Director of first appellant, The respondents are three.
The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated September 23, 1996 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench dismissing their writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
with him for the Respondent No.
The prayers in the writ petition were worded as under a issue a writ of prohibition or a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the Opposite Party Number 1 to proceed with case No.699 of 1994 Anurag Narain vs. Nitin Sachdeva and others b issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceedings in Case o. 699 of 1994 together with the companysequential order dated 9.5.1994 and the companyplaint dated 6.5.1993 in so far as it pertains to the petitioners c issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus companymanding the Opposite Party Number 1 number to proceed with the Case No.699 or 1994 during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition d issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem just and necessary in the circumstances of the case may also be passed and e to allow the writ petition with companyts.
