https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281486 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. en-us Fri, 13 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Jun 2019 18:02:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281486 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 13 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281486