STATE Vs. MOHIBULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aftab Omar had a shop in Nauchandi Mela where he was selling product of crystal diary in sealed phials. The appellant Mohibullah was his servant. A sample of toned milk was taken by the Food Inspector. On analysis it was found to be adulterated. The City Magistrate, Meerut found the offence proved against Aftab Omar after considering the evidence on the record. He, therefore, convicted Aftab Omar under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. The Appellant Mahibullah has been acquitted by the same order of the City Magistrate, Meerut dated 3-3-1972 ; hence this appeal by the States.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the evidence on the record. On the finding recorded by the Magistrate Mohibullah was a sales man in the aforesaid stall. The Magistrate has observed that there is no evidence to show that he was a party to the adulteration, or that he was selling adulterated milk with his consent and connivance. As such he has recorded an order of acquittal. After perusing the evidence on the record, I find that there is ample justification for this finding of fact which has been recorded by the Magistrate, but connivance of a servant or a salesman is not necessary in order to hold him guilty of an offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It has been held in Sarjoo Pd. Vs. The State of U.P., AIR 1961 S.C. 631.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the Acquittal of Mohibullah is contrary to law. This appeal by the State must therefore be allowed.