STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) versus I. K. NANGIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1016 · Decided: 23-10-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
1016 
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) 
v. 
I. K. NANGIA AND ANR. 
•• 
October 23, 1979 
[S. MVRTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
Process, issue of-Test for issue of process-Criminal Procedure Code, 197~, 
Section. 204 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 17(2), scope 
of-In a case where the manufacturer of an article of food is a company, which 
has no1ninated a person under sub·section (2) of section 17 of the Act, as the 
person responsible, whellier sales 1nanager of· one of its branches can be' pid· 
secured for a11 offence punishable under section !6(1)(a) read with section 7(1~ 
of the Act, when the article of food sold at the branch is found to be adulterate« 
within the meaninR of section 2(ia) of the Act. 
Pre11ention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, section 17(2)-JVhether, afta-
the int1·oduction of the new section 17 by Act No. 34 of 1976, when an offenR 
is comniitted by. a company, which has nominated a person responsible under 
Seciiov 17(2), it i's not permissible to prosecute any other officer of the CO'f1!.~ 
panv not ,being nominated under sub-section (2), unless there i's allegation that 
th; off~11ce had been committed with the consent or connivance of or was attTi-
bntablf1 to any neglect on the part of such officer. 
On August 31, 1976, the Food Inspector lifted a sample of 'Pootman' bran4 
:: 
ref\ned ground nut oil from M/s. Amar Provision & General Storei!, whiclt 
E 
wa' sold/supplied to it by' M/s. Gainda Mull Hem Raj on August 20, 
197~ 
aod tho same was found, as per the Public Analyst's report dated Septetllber 
9, 1976, to be adulterated due to the presence of Castoroil (not an edible oil). 
This adulterated article of food was supplied/sold to Gainda Mull Hemraj by 
Mis. Ahmad Comer Bhoy through its sales managers at Delhi, J. K. Ningia 
and Y. P. Bhasin. 
• 
H 
• 
On June 23, 1977, the Delhi Administration filed a complaint under sectio11 
7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a) and Section 17 against (i) 
M/s. Ahmei 
Oomer Bhoy Ahmed Mills, 
Bombay manufacturers of well known brand 
Postman groundnut oil (ii) their distributors M/s. Gainda Mull Hemraj, New 
Delhi, a partnership firm, and its managing Partner Meller Chand Jain (iii) 
M/s. Amar Provision and General Stores, Netajinagar Market, New Delhi and 
its owner Amrik Lal, the retailer (iv) Y. A. Khan, Manager, Quality Control, 
Ahmed Mills appointed by the manufacturers as the person respOnsihle under 
section 17 (2) of the Act, and (v) The two sales managers, Delhi Branch of 
Mis. Ahmed Comer Bhoy, manufacturers, I. K. Nangia and Y. P. Bhasin. 
The MetrOjloiitan Magistrate, Delhi by his order dated April l, 1978 found 
that there \Vas a prima facie case against all except the two sales managers 
and issued process accordingly. 
He dismissed the complaint against the res~ 
pondents on the ground "that they were not concerned with the manufacturer 
of the article in question, but had only effected the sale thereof". The Delhi 
Administration 1n0Yed the High Court in revision against dismissa1, but it de-
clined to interfere. 
• 
"' 
f 
.. 
STATE v. I. K. NANGIA (Sen, !.) 
1017 
Allowing the appeal by special leave the Court, 
HELD : 1. At the initial stage, if there is strong ~uspicion whieh leads the 
Court to think that there is a ground for presuming that the accused had 
comnlitted an offence, then it is not open to the Court to say that there was 
no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. [1020 C-D] 
In the instant case, the allegations in the complaint constitut~ a prima facie~ 
oase against the res~ndents of having committed an offence under section 7(1) 
read witi1 section 16(l)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 
The words "were in charge· of" and "responsible to it for the conduct of its 
business" are wide enough to include all the business activities of M/s. Ahmed 
Oomer Bhoy at Delhi who have· their office at De1hi ai.Ld the hvo respondents 
.are the sales Managers. [1020 E, G-H, 1021 A] 
State of Bi/iar v. Ramesh Singh, [1978] 1 SCR 257; applied. 
2. The person actually effecting the sale of an adulterated article of food is 
·directly liable under section 7 ( i) of the Act. 
The manufacturers M/ s. Ahmed 
Oomer Bhoy, Bombay became liable because they were directly selling the 
adulterated article through their branch office at Delhi. 
The respondents I. K. 
Nangia and Y. P. Bbasip. also became liable because of the wordSI ''by any 
person on his behalf'' in S~ction 7 wh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.