Judgment

SEN, J.:- In this appeal, by special leave, from the judgment of the Delhi High Court, two questions arise which are one of very general importance. The first is, in a case where the manufacturer of an article of food is a company, which has nominated a person under sub-s. (2) of S. 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as the person responsible, whether the sales manager at one of its branches can be prosecuted for an offence punishable under S. 16 (1) (a) read with S. 7 (i) of the Act, when the article of food sold at the branch is found to be adulterated within the meaning of S. 2 (ia) of the Act. The second is, whether after the introduction of the new S. 17 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 sub-s. (2), unless there is allegation that the offence had been committed with the consent or connivance of, or was attributed to, any, neglect on the part of such officer.

2. Upon the first question the facts lie within the smallest possible compass. On June 23, 1977 the Delhi Administratio