Section 66 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 decides who is answerable when a company commits an offence under the Act. The company itself and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business at the time are deemed guilty. There are two provisos, one for branches and units and one for a person who shows lack of knowledge or due diligence, and sub-section (2) separately reaches directors, managers and secretaries.
When a company commits an offence, the company and every person in charge of and responsible for its business at that time are deemed guilty and can be proceeded against. Where there are branches or units, the head or person in charge nominated by the company as responsible for food safety is liable for that unit. A person escapes if he proves the offence was without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence. Under sub-section (2), a director, manager, secretary or other officer is also guilty if the offence was with his consent or connivance or is attributable to his neglect. "Company" includes a firm or association of individuals.
The section at a glance
| Provision | Who is caught | Escape or limit |
|---|---|---|
| 66(1) | The company and every person in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business when the offence was committed | Second proviso: offence without his knowledge, or all due diligence exercised |
| First proviso | For companies with several establishments, branches or units: the Head or person in charge of that establishment, branch or unit, nominated by the company as responsible for food safety | Liability is for that establishment, branch or unit |
| 66(2) | Any director, manager, secretary or other officer | Proof that the offence was with his consent or connivance, or attributable to his neglect |
| Explanation | "Company" means anybody corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; "director" in a firm means a partner | Widens the section to partnerships |
Section 66(1): the company and the person in charge
The text says that the persons who, "at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
Two points follow.
- The test is role at the time of the offence. Holding a title is not enough and being a former officer later is not a defence if you held the responsibility when the offence occurred. The question is who was in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business.
- The company is also guilty. The company is proceeded against along with the responsible persons, and each is "punished accordingly", that is, as the section creating the offence provides. If you are in this position, penalty and adjudication support can help you map your role against the notice.
The first proviso: nominated person for branches and units
A company with many outlets does not make every director liable for every outlet by default. The first proviso says that where a company has "different establishments or branches or different units in any establishment or branch, the concerned Head or the person in-charge of such establishment, branch, unit nominated by the company as responsible for food safety shall be liable for contravention in respect of such establishment, branch or unit."
The nomination is the company's act. The Rules set out how a company nominates; see our article on nomination by a company under the FSS Rules, 2011 and our multi-branch FSSAI page for a company with many premises. Where no person has been nominated, the first proviso gives no shield and the general test in sub-section (1) applies.
The second proviso: no knowledge or due diligence
"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 or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence."
The burden is on the person to prove it. Useful evidence includes written food safety procedures, training records, audit reports, supplier guarantees, and inspection logs kept at the unit. This is the same idea as the due diligence defence in section 80(B); see defences in prosecution.
Section 66(2): consent, connivance or neglect
Section 66(2) applies "notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)". Where the offence was committed by a company and "it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence."
Unlike sub-section (1), which starts from position, this sub-section starts from proof of consent, connivance or neglect. A director who had no part in the day-to-day food business is not automatically caught by it.
What the explanation adds
- "Company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals. A partnership or LLP-type business, and a society or trust running a canteen, can therefore be within the section.
- "Director", for a firm, means a partner.
How it plays out with other sections
Section 66 operates on offences under the Act, so it matters most for the court sections, such as section 59 and section 63 (see operating without a licence). A penalty adjudicated under section 68 is imposed by the Adjudicating Officer, and the same person-in-charge logic is something to raise in the reply to a notice. Offences by a company are also subject to the limitation in section 77 (see appeal and time limit).
Example 1. A food company has a head office and three plants. It has nominated a plant manager as responsible for food safety at each plant. An offence is committed at Plant B. The proviso makes the nominated head of Plant B liable for that unit, and the company is liable as well.
Example 2. A director approved a decision to keep using a stock of expired raw material, knowing it would be used in production. If an offence follows and the consent is proved, sub-section (2) can make the director guilty too.
Need help with nomination and company-level compliance?
A company with several premises should record who is responsible for food safety at each one and keep the evidence of diligence. TaxClue can help you set this up and, if a notice has already come, respond through penalty and adjudication support.
Key takeaways
- The company and the persons in charge of its business when the offence occurred are deemed guilty.
- For branches and units, the nominated head or person in charge is liable for that unit.
- A person escapes by proving lack of knowledge or all due diligence.
- Directors, managers, secretaries and officers are also guilty on proof of consent, connivance or neglect.
- "Company" includes a firm or association of individuals, and "director" includes a partner.
Read next
- Section 65: compensation for injury or death of a consumer
- Section 67: penalty for contravention in import of food
- Responsibilities of a food manufacturer under the FSS Act
- Operating without an FSSAI licence: section 63
Disclaimer: Based on the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 as enacted, read with the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 where it applies (ss.59, 61 and 63 only; s.66 is unchanged). Verify current notifications, regulations and FSSAI orders before acting.