DEDHA AND CO Vs. PAULSON MEDICAL STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in a suit for recovery of damages is the appellant. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court against the second defendant. But on appeal by the plaintiffs, the suit was decreed against both the defendants, and the conversation awarded by the Trial Court in the sum of Rs. 2000/ was enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- together with interest.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff, a Partnership firm, was a licensee under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (the "Drugs Act") and the other two plaintiffs were partners of the firm. The first plaintiff purchased from the first defendant on 29-5-1971 a certain quantity of "Sweetin" bearing a guarantee that the articles did not "contravene in any way the provisions of S.18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940." Unknown to the plaintiffs, a notification had been issued on 25-5-1971, and published in the gazette on 26-5-1971, under Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, made under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the "Food Adulteration Act"), whereby sachrine sodium was included in Appendix B prescribing certain standards of quality. To sell, distribute, or store an article of food which does not comply with the standards prescribed is an offence punishable under S.7 read with S.16 of the Food Adulteration Act. The plaintiffs sold the articles purchased from the first defendant to various customers. On 17-8-1971 the Food Inspector of the Kunnamkulam Municipality purchased a sample containing the said article and sent the same for analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the article contravened the aforesaid provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, as it did not conform to the prescribed standards of quality. The plaintiffs were prosecuted. The Trial Court imposed imprisonment on plaintiffs 2 and 3 till the rising of the court and imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each of the plaintiffs. The conviction was set aside by the Sessions Court, but on appeal by the Food Inspector, this Court confirmed it as against the first and second plaintiffs but they were released under S.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act after executing a bond for Rs. l,000/- each with two sureties for the like sum for a period of one year.

(3.) Subsequently the present suit was brought claiming damages in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. This sum includes the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in defending themselves in the criminal case and for the mental agony suffered by plaintiffs 2 and 3. As stated earlier, the suit was decreed by the Trial Court as against the second defendant and the lower appellate court decreed the suit as against the first defendant also.