R. BANERJEE AND ORS. versus H.D. DUBEY AND ORS

R. BANERJEE AND ORS. versus H.D. DUBEY AND ORS

The criminal liability under Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, attaches primarily to the nominated person if a valid nomination under Section 17(2) exists. Other Directors or officers may be prosecuted only if the complaint clearly alleges their consent, connivance, or negligence, invoking Section 17(4). As there were no such allegations in these complaints and the existence and validity of the nomination form required factual inquiry, the matter was remanded to the trial court for determination.

Parties
Appellants: R. Banerjee and Others; Respondents: H.D. Dubey and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 March 1992
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeals by Special Leave From Order of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 356, 357 and 358/89
Outcome
Appeals allowed; orders of the magistrate and High Court set aside; matters remanded to trial court.
Legal Topics
Prosecution Under Section 17 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Against Directors/managers of Companies, Validity of Nomination Under Section 17(2), Scope of Liability of Company Officials, Requirement for Valid Nomination
Criminal Law Food Safety Law Prosecution Under Section 17 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Against Directors/managers of Companies Validity of Nomination Under Section 17(2) Scope of Liability of Company Officials Requirement for Valid Nomination

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. Banerjee and Others

Appellants

H.D. Dubey and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeals by Special Leave From Order of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 356, 357 and 358/89

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution can be launched against Directors and Managers of public limited companies under Section 17(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, notwithstanding the nomination made under Section 17(2) of the Act.
  2. 2 When can officers other than the nominated person be impleaded as co-accused under Section 17(4) of the Act.
  3. 3 What constitutes a valid nomination as per Section 17(2) and the Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The criminal liability under Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, attaches primarily to the nominated person if a valid nomination under Section 17(2) exists. Other Directors or officers may be prosecuted only if the complaint clearly alleges their consent, connivance, or negligence, invoking Section 17(4). As there were no such allegations in these complaints and the existence and validity of the nomination form required factual inquiry, the matter was remanded to the trial court for determination.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; orders of the magistrate and High Court set aside; matters remanded to trial court.

Orders

  • The trial magistrate is directed to inquire as a preliminary question whether the nomination forms nominating H. Dayani and Dr. Nirmal Sen were received and acknowledged by the competent Local (Health) Authority.
  • If the magistrate finds the nomination forms were acknowledged by the competent authority, proceedings against the Directors (other than company and nominated persons) shall be dropped.