REWATI RAMAN SHARMA Vs. JAMSHEDPUR NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was filed against Tejmal Sharma, proprietor of the grocery shop at Baridih, P.S. Golmur, Jamshedpur and Rewati Raman Sharma, alleging that on 23-12-1966 when the Food Inspector Upendra Narain Sinha (P. W. 2) went to the shop and wanted to take sample of mustard oil and Haldi for chemical analysis, the accused persons refused to sell the same to him and thereby prevented him from taking sample. On this complaint the prosecution was started against both the aforesaid accused persons under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The defence of Tejmal Sharma was that he was not present at the shop at the time of the arrival of the Food Inspector and that he did not prevent the Food Inspector from purchasing sample. The defence of Rewati Raman Sharma was that he had no concern with the shop. He was kept in charge of the shop just as a care-taker in the absence of his brother Tejmal Sharma, who was the proprietor thereof. His further defence was that his act of refusal to sell the articles to the Food Inspector, under the circumstances, did not amount to preventing him from taking the sample and as such no offence was committed by him.

(3.) The trial court held that accused Rewati Raman Sharma was working as salesman in the shop in question on 23-12-1966 when the Food Inspector wanted to take the sample of the mustard oil and Haldi for chemical analysis and that he refused to sell the same. It further held that this refusal amounted to preventing the Food Inspector from taking the sample. Hence it found him euilty of offence under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. So far Tejmal Sharma was concerned, the learned Magistrate found that he was found on the counter and was receiving the payment for the articles sold. Further he held that even assuming that he was not present in the shop at the time of occurrence, he would be liable of any act done by his servant or salesman. With such findings he held him also guilty under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act and imposed the same sentence on him as well. On appeal, the appellate court did not accept the finding about presence of Tejmal Sharma at the time the Food Inspector visited the shop and it rejected the contention that he had any vicarious liability for what was done by Rewati Raman Sharma. Consequently it acquitted him. The appellate court, however, affirmed the conviction and sentence of Rewati Raman Sharma. Rewati Raman Sharma has, therefore, filed this revision application.