RAGHUBAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by Raghubar against his conviction and sentence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) A complaint was lodged by the Food Inspector against the applicant Raghubar on the ground that on 30th July, 1970 at 8 A.M. at Canal Road Niwari, Likhi who was servant of the applicant was carrying 45 K.G. buffalo milk for sale. M.P. Sharma (P.W. 2) who was the Food Inspector appointed at that time checked Latif after disclosing his identity purchased 660 grams of milk from him and divided the sample into three equal parts and one part was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst reported that the sample in question was deficient in fat contents by 25 % and non-fatty solid contents by about 43 per cent. After having received the report from the Public Analyst the Food Inspector obtained the sanction of the District Medical Officer of Health and thereafter lodged the complaint mentioned above. The applicant pleaded not guilty. He, however, admitted that Likhi was his servant and that he had taken milk for sale. The Magistrate found that the evidence brought by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubts that the applicant had committed the offence under Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 12,00.00 and in default to undergo R.I. for six months. He was further sentenced to undergo six months R.I. In appeal his conviction and sentence were maintained. Hence this revision.

(3.) Two points were urged by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of this revision. One of them was that the applicant could not be held liable for the offence which was allegedly committed by Likhi. Elaborating the submission the learned counsel argued that the sample of the milk was taken from Likhi and not from the applicant and, therefore, the courts below committed an error in convicting him for offence under Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The submission made is not tenable. Sec. 7 of the Act lays down "No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store or sell (1) any adulterated food". The expression "himself or by any person on his behalf" to my mind applies to the accused who either sells by himself or by a servant on his behalf any adulterated food which is ultimately found to be adulterated. It is, therefore, not correct to argue that under Sec. 16 liability of the commission of the offence if any could only be that of the servant and not of the applicant who was admittedly the master. It has been noted in the judgment of the learned Session Judge that the fact of taking of the sample from Likhi was not disputed. Accordingly, the first submission has no substance.