GHISALAL HINDUSINGH NAIK Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant who is the owner of a business in milk has been convicted under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act because his servant, who in his absence was taking away some milk for sale was found to have prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorised by this Act. There being no evidence either of his presence or of abetment of his servant in this obstruction, the master who is the applicant here contended that he could not be convicted. The lower Courts rejected this pleading on the ground that the vicarious liability of the master was absolute and accordingly sentenced each of the two to a fine of Rs. 200 with imprisonment in default.

(2.) THE question before us is whether in the absence of direct evidence of abetment in the prevention of the taking of the sample the absentee principal can be held liable under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act just as he would be held liable under Sub-section 1 (a) and 1 (g) of the same section.

(3.) BROADLY speaking, the law has recognized what is popularly called the "vicarious liability" of the principal in legislation regarding adulteration of food, medicines and the like. Whether in regard to every act that is punishable the master would be liable by the very fact of that relationship, for everything done by the servant is a question that can be answered only with reference to the wording of the penal provision concerned. While holding :