CHANDER NAIN Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case the question for determination is if the allegations of the prosecution disclose commission of an offence of misbranding within the meaning of Sec. 2(ix) (e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), so as to make the present petitioner liable to be punished under section 16 of the said Act.

(2.) The prosecution against the present petitioner, was started on filing of a complaint by Delhi Administration in the Court of a Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The petitioner is an Assistant Manager (F & B), Hotel Oberoi Intercontinental. He had been nominated under section 17 of the Act to be in charge of and responsible to the company i.e. Hotel Oberoi Intercontinental, for the conduct of the business of the said company.

(3.) On April 27, 1985 at about 4.30 p.m. Shri S.K. Nanda, Food Inspector, purchased a sample of Sambar powder (curry powder). That sample was divided into three parts and one of the parts was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. That sample was found to be adulterated on account of presence of common salt to an extent in excess of the one prescribed by the rules. The relevant rule is A. 05.21 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. That prescribes that the percentage of edible common salt should not be more than 5. On a request of the petitioner, a part of the sample was sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory who found that the sample was in accordance with the prescribed standard. However, it was found that the packing, in which the curry powder was contained, had a label declaring that the common salt was 4%. According to the prosecution this amounted to misbranding.