KISHORI LAL GUPTA v. THE STATE OF BIHAR
Case at a glance
- Bench
- GOPAL PRASAD
Provisions considered
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ss. 16(1)(a)(i), 17(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 1010. With these observations and directions, this application is allowed. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J. )
Judgment
The provision of the law is well established in decision reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C., 1977 State (Delhi Admn.) Vrs. K. Nangia & Anr.) as well as in A.I.R. 1992 S.C., 1168 (R. Banerjee & Ors. Vrs. H.D. Dubey & Ors.) and from the plain reading of Section 17(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, it is apparently clearly that where an 4 offence under the Act is alleged to have been committed then the person who has been nominated to be In-charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business shall be liable to be proceeded and punished. However, Section 17(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, provides that if an offence has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent and connivance of any other person as Director of Manager, i.e., person not nominated shall also deem to be liable to be proceeded and punished and in this connection it is relevant to mention paragraph 4 of the decision reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C., 1168 (R. Banerjee & Ors. Vrs. H.D. Dubey & Ors.) which is reproduced as follows :
.......The scheme of sub-section (1) of Section 17 is, therefore, clear that the cases sub-sec. (2) of Section 17, he alone can be proceeded against and punished for the crime in question. It is only where no such person has been nominated that every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business can be proceeded against and punished......
This view has also found place in decision 5 reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C., 1977 State (Delhi Admn.) Vrs. K. Nangia & Anr.).
Hence, reverting back to the fact of the case at hand having taken into consideration the fact that the persons nominated by the company, as apparent from Annexure 2 which has not been controverted and, further, there is no material to suggest that there is consent and connivance of the petitioner and, hence, the order taking cognizance is not sustainable in the eye of law against the petitioner and, hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back with a direction to enquire into the question whether the nomination is proper and in accordance with law.
With these observations and directions, this application is allowed. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J. )
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.