FAKHRUDDIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO questions of law have been referred to us for opinion. The questions arose in a criminal revision filed by the accused against his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The questions of law referred for our opinion were in the following terms:

(2.) THE Prevention of Food Adulteration Act lays down the procedure for collection of sample by the Food Inspectors. Section 10 deals with the power of Food Inspectors. Sub-section (1) thereof provides: A food inspector shall have power-

(3.) AS the term "sale" does not find a specific definition in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it has to be given the general meaning of sale. As ruled by the Supreme Court in I. T. Commr. , M. P. v. Dewas Cine Corporation "sale" according to its ordinary meaning is a transfer of the property for a price. Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act when a Food Inspector takes the sample and the law requires him to pay a price the transaction would be a 'sale' if the transfer of property takes place in the course of the taking of the sample. The same result will follow if the definition of "sale" given in the Sale of Goods Act is applied to the definition of "sale" in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. According to the Law of Contract by G. C. Cheshire and C. H. S. Fifoot, 7th Edition page 147, "transfer of property constitutes the essence of a contract of sale". As soon as the demand is made and the goods to be taken as sample are separated from the lot, the transfer of property takes place by virtue of the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act.