TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: Sales Managers Can Be Prosecuted for Adulterated Food Sales</h1> <h3>STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) Versus I.K. NANGIA AND ANR.</h3> STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) Versus I.K. NANGIA AND ANR. - 1979 AIR 1977, 1980 SCR (1) 1046, 1980 SCC (1) 258 Issues Involved:1. Prosecution of Sales Manager for Adulterated Food Sale.2. Prosecution of Company Officers Not Nominated u/s 17(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.Summary:Issue 1: Prosecution of Sales Manager for Adulterated Food SaleIn this appeal, the Supreme Court addressed whether a sales manager at a branch can be prosecuted for selling adulterated food when the manufacturer, a company, has nominated a person responsible under sub-so (2) of s. 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The facts reveal that on August 31, 1976, a sample of 'Postman' brand refined groundnut oil was found adulterated. The Metropolitan Magistrate initially found a prima facie case against the manufacturers, distributors, and retailer but dismissed the complaint against the sales managers, I.K. Nangia and Y.P. Bhasin, stating they were not concerned with the manufacture but only with the sale. The Supreme Court held that the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate was unwarranted and that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the sales managers, as they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the Delhi branch.Issue 2: Prosecution of Company Officers Not Nominated u/s 17(2)The second issue was whether, after the introduction of the new s.17 by Act 34 of 1976, it is permissible to prosecute any other officer of the company not nominated under s.17(2) unless there is an allegation of consent, connivance, or neglect. The Court clarified that the individual liability of the sales manager is distinct from the corporate liability of the manufacturer. The company and its nominated person under s.17(2) can be prosecuted, and notwithstanding such nomination, other officers can also be prosecuted under s.17(4) if it is proved that the offence was committed with their consent, connivance, or neglect. The Court rejected the argument that only the nominated person could be prosecuted and emphasized the duty of companies to nominate different persons for different branches to comply with s.17(2).Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate and directed the issuance of summons to the respondents, including the sales managers, to proceed with the trial according to law. The appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 