R BANERJEE Vs. H D DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The short question which arises for determination in these appeals is whether it was permissible to launch a prosecution under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the Directors and Managers of public limited companies, namely, M/s. Lipton India Limited and M/ s. Hindustan Lever Limited, for the commission of the alleged offence punishable under the aforesaid provision notwithstanding the nomination made by the said companies as required by sub-sec. (2) of Section 17 of the Act. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the appellants it is necessary to notice a few provisions of the Act. Section 7 of the Act inter alia provides that no person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute any adulterated food or any misbranded food or any article of food in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 16 prescribes penalties for contravention of various provisions of the Act. It lays down that if any person whether by himself or by any person on his behalf, manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food which is adulterated or misbranded or the sale of which is prohibited under any provision of the Act or any rule made thereunder or by an order of the Food (Health) Authority, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. Then comes Section 17, the relevant part whereof may be reproduced:

(3.) Section 23 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make rules. In exercise of the said power the Central Government has framed rules known as the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). Rule 12-B with which we are concerned reads as under: