STATE Vs. JAGDISH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This government appeal is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Meerut dated 9 -1 -1969 whereby the Respondents were acquitted of an offence Under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. On 3 -3 -1967 Surendra Kumar, Food Inspector, Municipal Board, Meerut found Jagdish Respondent selling butter in Begum Bagh Meerut. It carried the label "New India Dairy, Beeru Well, Meerut". Jagdish was found selling butter as a Hawker on a bicycle. According to the prosecution the Respondents Prabhu Dayal and Devi Dayal were the proprietors of the New India Dairy which manufactured the butter which was being sold by Jagdish. It is also alleged that Jagdish was selling the butter as a servant of the owners of the dairy. Hence, the Food Inspector filed a complaint for the prosecution of all the three Respondents for an offence Under Sec. 7/16 of the Act.

(3.) The Respondent Jagdish admitted that he was selling butter and the Food Inspector had collected a sample of the same from him on payment of price. He, however, maintained that the sample was not adulterated and that he was not the servant of the other two Respondents. Devi Dayal Respondent did not admit that he was the owner of the said dairy or that Jagdish was his employee. He stated that when he was passing that way Jagdish had requested him to stand surety for him and these circumstances he had written the endorsement Exhibit Ka 3 to which we would later advert. Prabhu Dayal Respondent also likewise denied that Jagdish was his employee. He stated that there was enmity between him and the Municipal Board which had prosecuted him earlier for charges under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but he was acquitted. He, however, admitted that he was the owner of the New India Dairy.