Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — ss. 2(ia), 7(1), 16(1)(a), 17(1)(a)(i), 17(1)(a)(ii), 17(2), 17(4) — Code of Criminal Procedure, ss. 202, 204 — Issue of process — Prosecution of branch sales managers of a manufacturing company for selling adulterated refined groundnut oil despite nomination of a person responsible under s. 17(2) as amended by Act 34 of 1976. Held, allowing the appeal by special leave: (i) at the initial stage, strong suspicion affording ground to presume the accused committed an offence leaves no scope to conclude there is no sufficient ground for proceeding; (ii) the allegations constituted a prima facie case against the two Delhi sales managers under s. 7(1) read with s. 16(1)(a), the phrases 'were in charge of' and 'responsible to it for the conduct of its business' covering all the company's business activities at Delhi; (iii) whoever actually effects the sale of adulterated food is directly liable under s. 7(1), and 'by any person on his behalf' includes agents and servants, so the branch sales managers were liable along with the manufacturer selling through its Delhi branch; (iv) on the plain meaning of new s. 17, absent nomination every person in charge of and responsible for the business is deemed guilty, and even where a s. 17(2) nomination exists any director, manager, secretary or other officer may be vicariously prosecuted under s. 17(4) upon proof of consent, connivance or neglect; (v) confining liability to the nominee would render the Explanation to s. 17(2) illusory; the Explanation, though permissive in terms, imposes a public duty — 'may' means 'must', a power coupled with duty (Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford, [1875-85] A.C. 214, quoted with approval); a country-wide company must nominate different persons for different places or face s. 17(1)(a)(ii); (vi) the manufacturers had nominated no person for their Delhi branch, so s. 17(1)(a)(ii) applied squarely; (vii) the sales manager's individual liability is distinct from the corporate liability and company, nominee and sales manager can all be prosecuted under s. 7(1) read with s. 16(1)(a). Metropolitan Magistrate's order set aside; directed to issue summons and proceed with trial. State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, [1978] 1 SCR 257, applied.
