POLSAN LTD Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant No. 1 M/s. Poison Limited and appellants Nos. 2 and 3, employees of the firm at Calcutta, filed this appeal against their conviction under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i)/7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by a Municipal Magistrate at Calcutta, Appellant No. 1 has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- while appellants 2 and 3 have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to simple imprisonment for three months. The subject-matter of the prosecution was ghee which on chemical analysis was found to be adulterated in the sense that the moisture content therein and the oleic acid content also, exceeded the standard as prescribed in A 11.14 of Appendix I to the Rules framed under the P. F. A. Act. The standard for moisture content prescribed for West Bengal is 0.3% while that prescribed for oleic acid is 3%. The result of analysis in the present case disclosed a moisture content of 1% and oleic acid content of 4.2%. The learned Magistrate on a finding that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed by the Rules under the P. F. A. Act convicted appellant No. 1 the company and also appellants 2 and 3 as persons in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the company's business. The conviction of appellants 2 and 3 was obviously made under Section 17 of the P. F. A. Act.

(2.) The defence of appellant No. 1 at the trial was that the sample was taken from a sealed tin which along with other tins was kept in cold storage, that the removal of the tin from the cold storage to a dry place resulted in an increase in the moisture content of the ghee inside and the increase in the moisture content necessarily led to an increase in the oleic acid content in the ghee. The defence of appellants 2 and 3 was that they do not have anything to do with the manufacture of the ghee which is done outside Calcutta; that they are employees in the office of the firm and are not responsible for the quality of the ghee or butter that is manufactured by the company.

(3.) The learned Magistrate accepted the result of the chemical analysis and as that disclosed a variation from the standard prescribed, found that the sample was adulterated. He also found appellants 2 and 3 responsible for the affairs of the company and on its findings he made the order of conviction and sentence which is the subject-matter of the present appeal.