Summary
The Supreme Court set aside cognizance against a person prosecuted solely as the company’s nominee under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The complaint and nomination record showed that another director had been nominated to the Local Health Authority. Information from the Commercial Tax Department did not displace that record. A nomination in the prescribed Form VIII, duly sent and received, could not be rejected merely because it appeared on company letterhead. No separate allegations implicated the appellant.
Issues
- Whether cognizance could rest solely on an alleged nominee status contradicted by the nomination submitted to the Local Health Authority.
- Whether company letterhead invalidated an otherwise prescribed nomination form.
Provisions considered
- Section 17(2), Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954The nomination notified to the Local Health Authority identified another director, undermining the sole basis for proceedings against the appellant. (¶ 7-11)
Held
- The relevant nomination was that given to the Local Health Authority. The complaint itself supported the nomination of another director; contrary information from the Commercial Tax Department did not justify treating the appellant as nominee. (¶¶ 6-7, 10-11)
- The nomination was received after incorporation and the company resolution. Its earlier letter date did not negate receipt, and use of company letterhead did not invalidate a nomination in Form VIII duly sent and received. (¶ 8-10)
- Apart from the mistaken nominee allegation, the complaint contained no specific allegation against the appellant. Cognizance against him therefore could not stand. (¶ 11-12)
Result
Appeal allowed; cognizance against the appellant and the orders sustaining it set aside.