STATE OF U P Vs. NANAK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents were charged under Sections 7/16 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 47 of the Rules framed thereunder. It was alleged that on 24-2-1968 the Food Inspector checked Nanak Chand selling and exposing for sale aerated water 'gold Spot' at his shop in Chowk Sadar Bazar. Meerut. The Food Inspector purchased three bottles of 'gold Spot' on payment of the requisite amount. The contents of the three bottles were mixed in a jar and thereafter the Food lnspector filled the contents in three separate clean and empty bottles which were sealed on the spot in the presence of the accused. One of the sealed sample bottles was handed over to the acoused and a receipt was obtained. One of the sample bottles was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and report. The public Analyst reported that the sample of the said aerated water was sweetened with saccharin without any declaration. After obtaining the sanction from the Cantonment Executive Officer Nanak Chand was prosecuted.

(2.) NANAK Chand admitted the sale of three 'gold Spot' bottles and the filling of their contents in three separate bottles which were then sealed. He also admitted his signatures on the notice (Ex. Ka. 1) and the receipt (Ex. Ka. 2 ). He, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him and claimed that he was working under a warranty of the 'gold Spot' company.

(3.) THE Proprietor of the Delhi Bottling Company (Private) Limited, Delhi, was also summoned as an accused in the case. D. J, Brahma, Branch Manager of the Company, appeared in response to the summons issued to the Company and stated that as its Proprietor and Manager he was over all incharge of the manufacturing and distribution of 'gold Spot'. He also stated that warranty had been written on the cash memo. It was admitted that there was no declaration with regard to the use of saccharin and it was asserted no saccharin was used in the preparation of 'gold Spot'. This accused contested the report of the Public Analyst.