D K JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order of the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Meerut, upholding on appeal the applicant's conviction and sentence of Rs. 1000/- as fine under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as recorded by a Magistrate, First Class on 30th January, 1983.

(2.) MESSRS. Edward Keventers (S) Private Limited, Delhi, who deal in dairy products and milk, had established a stall at the Nauchandi Fair in the district of Meerut. On 15th April, 1962 at about 7 P. M. Sri Ajmal Husain, Food Inspector Meerut purchased 16 Chhataks of sweetened milk from Vidya Bhushan who was working as salesman at the stall on payment of its price. The sample was divided into three parts and sealed then and there in three separate containers, according to the rules, one of which was handed over to Vidya Bhushan. The other was sent to the Public Analyst and the third was retained in the office of the Medical Officer of Health of the city. The Public Analyst tested the sample on the basis of the statutory standard for buffalo milk and found it to be deficient in fat contents by about 53 per cent. His report indicates that coaltar dye (erythrosine colour index No. 773) had been used for colouring the milk which was not permissible under the law. Subsequently the applicant who is the Commercial Manager of the aforesaid Company and its Salesman Vidya Bhushan were tried for an offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 250/respectively. Their conviction and sentences were confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge. The revision filed by Vidya Bhushan against his conviction and sentence was summarily dismissed and we are not concerned with it.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has raised two points in support of this revision. His contention is that as the applicant was not present at the stall when the sample was purchased and as he is not responsible for the production side of the Company's business, he could not be held liable for an offence under Section 16 of the Act. Learned counsel contends that Messrs. Edward Keventers (S) Private Limited is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and, therefore, to make the applicant liable for the offence alleged to have been committed by it, it must be proved that the offence had been committed with the consent and connivance of the applicant, or is attributable to any neglect on his part, for which there is no evidence on the record.