Disputed Nomination in Food Adulteration Case

A legal case revolving around a disputed nomination in a food adulteration matter has sparked debate on the court’s legal analysis. The appellant’s argument regarding the nomination form issued on company letterhead has been under scrutiny. The courts’ decision to reject the claim based on specific reasons has brought attention to the intricacies of legal proceedings. Stay tuned for a closer look at the complexities of this case.


  • The appeal is against the judgment and order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan.
  • The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court.
  • The appellant challenged the order dated 04.08.2003 by filing Criminal Case No.17 of 2017.
  • Nomination of the appellant had been submitted to the Chief Medical Officer in Mathura and no allegations were made against him.
  • The Director of M/s Bhola Baba Milk Food Industry, Devendra Singh Bhadauria, was also a party in the case.
  • The appellant claims he was not the nominee of the firm, instead Devendra Singh Bhadauria was declared as the nominee.
  • A complaint was filed against Oswal Traders Shop under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 based on an inspection.
  • The complaint mentioned Hari Shankar Aggarwal as the nominee of the firm based on information from the Commercial Tax Department in Jaipur.

Also Read: Court’s Jurisdiction in Re-appraising Arbitrator’s Findings


  • Dr. Manish Singhvi, senior counsel, argues that the nomination form was issued on the company letterhead, which should not have been sent.
  • He references the order dated 16.02.2018 by the Special Judge in Jhalwar, Rajasthan.
  • The appellant’s counsel, based on Annexure P-2, notes that the nomination form for Devendra Singh Bhadauria was sent on 21.02.1995 and received on 21.10.1995.
  • The complaint against the appellant as the nominee should not have been considered since the nominee was Devendra Singh Bhadauria.
  • Dr. Manish Singhvi for the State argues that the Courts did not believe the document Annexure P-2 dated 21.02.1995, served on 21.10.1995.
  • The appellant’s claim was rightly rejected by the Courts based on reasons provided by the Special Judge.

Also Read: Contrary Directions in Issuance of Letter of Intent


  • The burden of proof regarding the date of nominee nomination lies on the appellant.
  • The nomination form clearly mentions Form VIII (Rule 12-B) with Bhole Baba Milk Food Industry as the nominee.
  • Information regarding the nominee was received from the Local Health Officer in Mathura.
  • The Food Adulteration Act, 1954 requires notification to the Local Health Authority about the nominated Director or Manager.
  • Discrepancies were highlighted between the nominee mentioned by the Commercial Tax Department and the Local Health Officer.
  • Nomination in Form VIII was duly sent and received, cannot be rejected for being on the letterhead of the company
  • The complaint clearly indicated that Devendra Singh Bhadauria was responsible for the company’s affairs
  • No specific allegations against the present appellant in the complaint except being impleaded as a nominee
  • No cognizance could have been taken against the appellant for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
  • High Court and Special Judge erred in rejecting the appellant’s case

Also Read: Application for Stay in Civil Suit Rejected: Court’s Legal Analysis


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000297-000297 / 2021

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *