CHIMANLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.6.1993 passed by the learned appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner for six months' simple imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default whereof to undergo one month's imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 7(1-A)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Food Inspector took sample from the shop situated at Sadar Bazar, Pratapgarh on 8.6.1979. At the relevant time, the present petitioner was present at the shop. Sample of sweet, named Aam Pak was taken, which was sent to the Public Analyst for its chemical examination and it was found to be adulterated as it contained nun-permitted coal tar dye. A complaint was filed before the competent Court on 22.11.1979 and after trial, the present petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as above. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) The only contention of the present petitioner is that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the shop from which sample was taken, was having the license bearing No. 36B and this license has been produced before the trial Court by the present petitioner, which is in the name of Heeralal, who is the father of the present petitioner. Adjacent to the shop is having the license in the name of Madanlal, who is the brother of the present petitioner, who was having the license for keeping sweets and other eatables. The sample was not taken from the shop of the present petitioner and the present petitioner is not liable or incharge of the business of the shop. The present petitioner is not the owner of the shop or a partner to the firm. The complaint against the present petitioner is without any basis. In seizure memo Ex.P-4, it has been mentioned that the firm was having the license No. 36B and admittedly license No. 36B is in the name of Heeralal. The petitioner has also drawn my attention towards Sec. 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which deals with the offences by companies and by virtue of Explanations (a) and (b), the company includes a firm and director includes a partner in the firm. Sec. 17(l)(ii) reads as under: