Company officer liability for adulterated food remains despite one nomination under Section 17(2) when branch responsibility is alleged.

A branch sales manager who is in charge of and responsible for the conduct of a company's branch business may be prosecuted for selling adulterated food, because direct sale through agents or servants attracts liability under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Nomination of one person under Section 17(2) does not immunise other officers of the company; separate liability may still arise for persons in charge of the business, and for directors, managers or officers where the offence is alleged to have occurred with their consent, connivance or neglect. The statutory scheme was read as preserving prosecution of branch-level officers where the allegations disclose their responsibility.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a sales manager of a company's branch can be prosecuted for selling adulterated food when the manufacturer-company had nominated a person under Section 17(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. (ii) Whether, after the introduction of the new Section 17 by Act 34 of 1976, nomination of one person under Section 17(2) bars prosecution of other officers of the company unless consent, connivance or neglect is alleged.

Issue (i): Whether a sales manager of a company's branch can be prosecuted for selling adulterated food when the manufacturer-company had nominated a person under Section 17(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Analysis: The complaint alleged that the sales managers were in charge of the Delhi branch business and were responsible for the conduct of the company's business there, and that the adulterated oil was sold through them. The Court held that the person actually effecting the sale of adulterated food is directly liable under Section 7(i), and the words "by any person on his behalf" are wide enough to include agents and servants acting for the company. The allegations therefore disclosed a prima facie case for proceeding against the sales managers.

Conclusion: Yes. The sales managers could be prosecuted and the dismissal of the complaint against them was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether, after the introduction of the new Section 17 by Act 34 of 1976, nomination of one person under Section 17(2) bars prosecution of other officers of the company unless consent, connivance or neglect is alleged.

Analysis: The Court construed Section 17 as creating separate liabilities. Where no person is nominated under Section 17(2), every person in charge of and responsible for the company's business is liable under Section 17(1)(a)(ii). Even where a person is nominated, Section 17(4) preserves liability of other directors, managers, secretaries or officers if the offence was committed with their consent, connivance or neglect. The Explanation to Section 17(2) was read as requiring nomination for different branches or establishments, otherwise the statutory scheme would be defeated. The nomination of one person at the head office did not immunise the branch sales managers.

Conclusion: No. Nomination under Section 17(2) did not bar prosecution of the respondents, and the complaint against them was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution could proceed against both the company's nominated person and the branch sales managers, and the order refusing process against the respondents was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for adulterated food by a company, a branch sales manager who is in charge of and responsible for the branch business may be prosecuted under Section 7(i), and nomination of one person under Section 17(2) does not exclude the liability of other officers where the statutory conditions for such liability are otherwise attracted.

---