9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (10) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 by Act 34 of 1976, when an offence is committed by a company, which has nominated a person responsible under s.17 (2), it is not permissible to prosecute any other officer of the company not being nominated under subs. (2), unless there is allegation that the offence had been committed 'with the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to, any neglect on the part of such officer. Upon the first question the facts lie within the smallest possible compass. On June 23, 1977 the Delhi Administration filed a complaint under s.7 (i) read with s.16 (1) (a) and s.17 against (1) M/s. Ahmed Oomar Bhoy, Ahmed Mills, Bombay, manufacturers of the well-known 'postman' brand or refined groundnut oil, (2) their distributors M/s. Gainda Mull Hem Raj, New Delhi, a partnership firm, and its managing Partner Mehar Chand Jain, (3) M/s. Amar Provision General Store, Netaji Nagar Market, New Delhi and its owner Amrik Lal, the retailer, (4) Y. A. Khan, Manager Quality Control, Ahmed Mills appointed by the manufacturers as the person responsible under s. 17(2) of the Act, and (5) the two Sales Managers, Delhi Branch of M/s. Ahmed Oomer Bhoy, manufacturers, I. K. Nangia and Y. P. Bha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant case, the allegations in the complaint constitute a prima facie case against the respondents of having committed an offence under s.7 (i) read with s.16 (1) (a) of the Act. In the complaint, the material allegations are as follows: 6. That the adulterated article of food was supplied/ sold to M/s. Gainda Mull Hem Raj on 20-8-76 by M/s. Ahmed Oomer Bhoy through its sales managers at Delhi I. K. Nangia and Y. P. Bhasin. 7. That accused Y. A. Khan is the Quality Control Manager of accused No. 5 and accused I. K. Nangia and Y. P. Bhasin are the Sales Managers (Local Branch) of accused No. 5 and were incharge of and responsible to it for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of offences by accused No. 5. The words were incharge 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. It is a common ground that they have a Delhi Office at 2- A/3, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, and that the two respondents I.K. Nangia and Y. P. Bhasin are the Sales Managers. The complaint makes a specific allegation that the respondents were incharge of and were responsible to thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge of and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company; and (b) the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub- section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Any company may, by order in writing, authorise any of its directors or managers (such manager being employed mainly in a managerial or supervisory capacity) to exercise all such powers and take all such steps as may be necessary or expedient to prevent the commission by the company of any offence under this Act and may give notice to the Local (Health) Authority, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, that it has nominated such director or manager as the person responsible, along with the written consent of such director or manager for being so nominated. Explanation.-Where a company has different establishments, or branches or different units in any establi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is a large business organization with a widespread network of sales organisations throughout the country, it ought to nominate different persons for different places or face the consequences set forth in s.17 (1) (a) (ii). The Explanation appended to s.17 (2) does, in terms, contemplate that where a company has different establishments or branches or different units in any establishment or branch, it may nominate different persons in relation to different establishments or branches or units and the person so nominated in relation to any establishment or branch or unit shall be deemed to be the person responsible in respect of such establishment or branch or unit. The language of the Explanation shows a purpose and, therefore, a construction consistent with that purpose must reasonably be placed upon it. We are clear that the Explanation to s. 17(2), although in terms permissive, imposes duty upon such a company to nominate a person in relation to different establishments or branches or units. There can be no doubt that this implies the performance of a public duty, as otherwise, the scheme underlying the section would be unworkable. The case, in our opinion, comes with in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
