A RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two criminal revisions arise out of C.C No 96/6 on the file of the Second Munsrf Magistrate at Warangal. THE first accused in the case is the revision petitioner in Crl. R.C. No 655 of 1976 while accused' 2 and 3 are the revision petitioners in Crl. R.C. No. 654 of 1976. THE accused in CC. No. 96/76 were convicted of the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with section 16 (1) and (7) and Section 2 (1) (a) of the PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs, l,000/-and in default to a fuither rigorous imprisonment for four months. Mr Padmanabha Reddy the learned counsel for the accused submits the facts in the case disclose accused 2 and 3 are the licensees of Toddy Shop. No. II at Bapujinagar at Khazipet. THEy were not the persons who were vending toddy at the shop on 4-12-1975 when liquor was purchased at 12 noon by P.W.L. THE revision petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 655 of 1976 was the person vending toddy and who sold 1980 milliliters for Rs. 3/- to the Pood Inspector. A-2 and A-3 are in no way responsible for the Chloral Hydrate found in the toddy sold. THE learned Sessions Judge at Waragnal as a fact found that on 4-12-1975 P.W I followed by a Sanitary Inspector (PW2) and the Municipal Health Officer visited Toddy Shop No. II of which accused 2 and 3 are the licensees THE first accused was selling toddy in that shop. P.W.I, purchased three bottles of toddy and sold them and gave one bottle to ths first accused and sent one bottle for analysis and kept one bottle with himself. THE report of the Chemical Analyst found the toddy was adulterated and contained Chloral Hydrate which is injurious to health. THEre is no knowing of the fact it is argued that accused 2 and 3 were aware that the first accused had adulterated the toddy. THE learned Sessions Judge found "D 3 shows A-2 and A-3 are owners of the shop"......" and A-I (paragraph No. 9)" and the liability is fixed paragraph No. II)" If it is once decided that shop where A-I was found selling toddy belongs to A-2 and A-3 it automatically follows that A-I is the authorised agent or representative or servant of A-2 and A-3 and that if the toddy sold in that shop is adulterated A 2 and A-3 are liable for punishment. "This again is repeated and it is observed "Whether A-I is an authorised agent or an unauthorised sub-contractor or servant or represen ative or not it matters very little when the shop belongs to A-2 and A 3 without the permission and consent and A-2 and A-3 it cannot be expected that A-I was selling toddy." THE reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge to implicate A-2 and A-3 is contrary to what is incorporated in Section 17 of the Act. THE Supreme Court in Smt. Maniabi and another Vs THE State Maharashtra considered the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act and S. 17 and the observations of the court are opposite: It is observed: "In this respect we find that Maniabi was admittedly not present at the time the coconut oil was purchased by the Food Inspector Mahsjan from Pranjivan accused. THE High Court in the course of its judgment has arrived at the finding that Manibi is not in charge of nor is she actually conducting the business carried on at the shop from which the food inspector purchased the coconut oil. In the circumstances, the fact that Maniabi is the licensee of the shop would not warrant he reconviction According to Sec.17 (1) of the Act, where an offence under the Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company shall be proceeded against and punished accordingly. THE Sub-section is followed by the proviso according to which nothing contained in the subsection would render any such person liable to any punishment. If he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence......THEre is nothing to show that the business carried on in the shop in question was that of a firm and that Manibai was a partner of the said firm. Even if it may be assumed that the business was owned by a firm or an association of individuals and Manibai was a partner of that firm or member of that association of individuals, Manibai would be liable under Section 17 (1) of the Act for the sale which was made by her son Pranjivan only if it was shown that she was in charge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business which was carried on at the shop. THEre is no evidence to that effect on the record. In the absence of such evidence, no criminal liability for the sale of coconut oil by Pranjivan can be fastened on Manibai under the provisions of the Act (emphasis supplied). THErefore the conviction of Accused 2 and 3 "automatically" does not follow and on the facts found cannot be sustained. THE conviction and sentence of A-2 and A-3 therefore is set aside. Criminal Revision Case No. 654 of 1976 is allowed In regard to criminal revision case No. 655 of 1976 the learned counsel submit the Food Inspector (P W I) it is not shown had jurisdiction and not proved that he was qualified to be appointed as Food Inspector. In a careful analysis on this part of the case the learned Sessions Judge dealt the question and found against the accused. I see no reason to interfere with the reasoning ot the conclusions recorded by the Judge THE learned counsel submitted the sentence of two years is rather harsh in the circumstances I see the force in the submission. THE sentence therefore is reduced from two years rigorous imprisonment to that of six months rigorous imprisonment and in other respects the sentence is confirmed. THE sentence is modified as indicated above. Criminal Revision case No. 655 of 1976 therefore, is dismissed K.N.R. ----- Crl. R.Cs. dismissed.