RAMCHAND RAM Vs. GAYA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application on behalf of two persons Ramchand Ram and Mani Ram, who have, been convicted under Section 3 (1), Food and Drugs Adulteration Act (2 of 1919). The former has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, and the latter has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three weeks.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is that on 22 September, 1943 Mr. G. Paterson, Sanitary Inspector of the Gaya Municipality, went to the shop of the firm where ghee is sold. He found the petitioner, Mani Ram who is a munib of the shop, present in the shop. Mr. Paterson told the munib that he wanted sample of the ghee that was sold by the shop for being sent to Patna for chemical examination. The munib agreed and the Sanitary Inspector purchased three chhataks of ghee from the shop for 6 annas 9 pies. According to the rules, the sample purchased was divided into three parts in the presence of the munib and each part was put in three separate phials. The phials were then packed and sealed in the presence of the munib. A receipt was granted by the munib showing the payment of the price for the sample sold, and he also signed on the report which the Sanitary Inspector was going to submit in the matter to his superior officers. One phial containing the sample of the ghee was left with the munib while the other two phials were taken charge of by the Sanitary Inspector who forwarded them to the chemical examiner who reported in due course that the sample of ghee was not genuine and was highly adulterated. Upon these facts the petitioners were placed on trial. Ihey pleaded not guilty but they have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

(3.) One of the points urged before the lower appellate Court was that petitioner 1 was not the sole proprietor of the shop but he held it in partnership with three others namely Guru-saran Lai, Lachmi Babu and Bishun Babu, and therefore, only one of the proprietors of the shop should not have been prosecuted. It was also urged that the firm is a firm of commission agents where byaparis bring ghee in closed tins which are sold in the same condition as they are received in the shop, and, therefore the liability for the quality of the ghee sold by the shop rested also on the byaparis. It was further urged that petitioner 1 himself does not attend the shop and has no knowledge of what happens in the shop and that, therefore, he is not liable for any criminal act of the munib of the shop. With regard to the contention that petitioner 1 is not the sole owner of the firm, the lower appellate Court observes as follows: That may be so, but I fail to understand how the appellant Rai Bahadur Ramchand Ram can plead that because his other partners have not been prosecuted his prosecution alone is either bad or illegal. May be for some reason or other which, might even be sinister, the municipality has chosen to prosecute Rai Bahadur Ramchand Ram alone. There is nothing illegal in that being done. Of course, the other partners are equally liable to prosecution, but if the municipality has chosen not to proseoute. them, it cannot be said that the prosecution of Rai Bahadur Ramchand Ram is illegal on account of that.