Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – ss.7/16 – Offence under – Cognizance taken against appellant by Courts below – If justified – Case of appellant that he was not a nominee of the firm / company in question and there being no allegation against him, no cognizance of the offence could have taken against him – Held: As per s.17 of the Act, notice u/s.17(2) is contemplated by company to Local Health Authority in such form and in such manner as prescribed that it has nominated such Director or Manager as a person who is responsible along with written consent of such Director – On facts, when the nomination was in Form VIII and duly sent and received, it cannot be rejected on the ground that it was sent on the letter head of the company – The averments in the complaint itself clearly indicate that it was the name of one Devendra Singh Bhadauria which was with the Local Health Authority, hence it was he who was responsible for the affairs of the company and reference of appellant whose name was informed by the Commercial Tax Department, has no relevance – High Court as well as the Special Judge erred in rejecting the case of the appellant – Further there were no specific allegations against the appellant in the complaint apart from that he was being impleaded as a nominee – Thus, no cognizance could have been taken against the appellant for offence u/s.7/16 of the Act, and the Courts below committed error in taking cognizance.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.