JAGANNATHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE were three accused before the Sub-Divisional judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam in C. C. No. 383 of 1978, who were accused of offences under Sections 7 (i )and 16 (1 ) (a) read with S. 2 ( i ) (a)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. They were found guilty of the said offences by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE accused appealed against the conviction and sentence before the Sessions Judge, East Thanjavur , A. 1 filing C. A. No. 219 of 1978 and A. 2 and A. 3, C. A. 222 of 1978. THE learned Sessions Judge allowed C. A. No. 219 of 1978 acquitting A. 1 and dismissed C. A. 222 of 1978 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court on A. 2 and A. 3. THE present revision is filed by A. 2 and A. 3 against the order of the learned sessions-Judge

(3.) TURNING to the case of A. 2, the sales-man, the learned counsel for the petitioners, (sic) are liable for the offence alleged against them only vicariously within the meaning of Section 17 of the P. F. A. and as such in the absence of any valid prosecution and conviction against the co-operative Society Bank, the petitioners could not be prosecuted and convicted. The Counsel states that it is unjust to prosecute against the second accused as a vendor individually without the aid of Section 17, for the act constituting offence was not of his choosing but of the society or of one in charge of management of the business of the company. It is the society which is primarily liable and he is only acting on behalf of the society and is vicariously liable for it. He is not the vendor in the real sense of the term.