Company nomination under food safety law limits prosecution to the company and nominee unless consent, connivance or neglect is pleaded.

Where a company validly nominates a person under section 17(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, prosecution ordinarily lies against the company and the nominated person alone; directors or managers may be proceeded against only if the complaint and material invoke section 17(4) by alleging consent, connivance or neglect. The complaints here contained no such allegation against the other officers, so their prosecution could not stand on that footing. The validity of the nomination also depended on whether the prescribed forms were received and acknowledged by the competent Local (Health) Authority. As that question was unresolved, the matter was remanded for a limited finding on acknowledgment before further proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after nomination under section 17(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, directors and managers other than the nominated person could be prosecuted for an offence committed by the company. (ii) Whether the validity of the nomination depended on its receipt and acknowledgment by the competent Local (Health) Authority, and what consequence followed if that issue was not clear on the record.

Issue (i): Whether, after nomination under section 17(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, directors and managers other than the nominated person could be prosecuted for an offence committed by the company.

Analysis: The scheme of section 17 makes the nominated person the primary person liable to be proceeded against where a valid nomination exists. Other directors or officers can be proceeded against only where the complaint alleges and the material shows that the offence was committed with their consent, connivance or neglect under section 17(4). In the complaints in question, there was no such allegation against the co-accused other than the company and the nominated persons.

Conclusion: The prosecution of the directors and managers, apart from the company and the nominated persons, could not stand unless section 17(4) was attracted.

Issue (ii): Whether the validity of the nomination depended on its receipt and acknowledgment by the competent Local (Health) Authority, and what consequence followed if that issue was not clear on the record.

Analysis: The nomination forms and supporting materials indicated that nominations had been made in favour of the concerned persons, but there remained an unresolved question whether the forms had been received and acknowledged by the competent Local (Health) Authority. That issue was material because a valid nomination would bring the case within section 17(1)(a)(i), while an invalid nomination could permit proceedings against all accused. The proper course was therefore to have the magistrate determine that question as a preliminary matter.

Conclusion: The matter had to be remanded for a finding on whether the nomination forms were acknowledged by the competent Local (Health) Authority.

Final Conclusion: The complaints against the co-accused could not be sustained without first determining the validity of the nominations, so the matter was sent back for that limited inquiry before further proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a company has validly nominated a person under section 17(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, prosecution ordinarily lies against the company and the nominated person alone, and other officers can be proceeded against only on pleadings and proof attracting section 17(4); the validity of the nomination must be determined by the competent authority's receipt and acknowledgment of the prescribed form.

---