FOOD INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM MUNICIPALITY Vs. RAMAVARMA THIRUPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the Food Inspector of the Ernakulam Municipality against the order passed by the District Magistrate,Ernakulam acquitting the accused who was prosecuted under S.16(1 )(a)read with S.7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 - hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) ON 8 -7 -1959,P.W.1 one of the Food Inspectors of the Municipality visited the Arya Vydia Pharmacy at Valanjambalam and purchased from the accused,Who was in charge,12 ozs.of honey,paid its value and obtained a receipt.Notice was then given that the purchase was for analysis.The honey was divided into three parts and duly sealed and one part was given to the accused and acknowledged.The other part was sent to the Public Analyst,Trivandrum,who on analysis found that the sample to be adulterated.

(3.) S .17 of the Act reads as follows: "( 1)Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company,every person 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: 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 or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence * * * * " S.17 prescribes a rule of vicarious liability in case of sales by a company making every person who was in charge of the business of the company at the relevant time also liable for the commission of the offence.It is only when a director or officer of the company other than the person who actually sold the article on behalf of the company is prosecuted and sought to be made liable that S.17 really comes into play.