IN RE: DURAISAMI NADAR AND ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners (accused 1 and 2) seek to revise their conviction under Section 16(1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) ON 31st March, 1967 at about 9 -30 a.m. accused -2, the salesman employed by accused -1 in his grocery shop was found in possession of compounded miskey asafoetida for sale. Accused -1 was the owner of the grocery shop. Accused -2 sold six ounces of the compounded miskey to the Food Inspector P.W. 1, which on analysis was found to be misbranded. It is unnecessary for me to notice the other facts or the circumstances of the case for meeting the argument of the learned Counsel (Mr. Vanamamalai).

(3.) MR . Vanamamalai argued about the lack of proof of the sample being misbranded but later in view of the terms of Section 16 (1) (a) (i) and Section 2 (ix)(j) and (k) of the Act the argument was abandoned.