9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Conviction and sentence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Liability of the applicant as the Commercial Manager of the Company. 3. Nature of the milk sold at the stall - buffalo milk or toned milk. 4. Prosecution of the Company under Section 17(1) of the Act. Analysis: Issue 1: Conviction and sentence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act The judgment deals with a revision against the conviction and sentence of the applicant under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The applicant, along with the salesman, was tried for selling sweetened milk found to be deficient in fat content and containing unauthorized coaltar dye. The Public Analyst's report confirmed the adulteration. The Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and fine imposed on the applicant, which led to this revision. Issue 2: Liability of the applicant as the Commercial Manager of the Company The applicant, as the Commercial Manager of the Company, argued that he was not present when the sample was purchased and was not responsible for the production side of the business. The defense contended that for the applicant to be held liable, it must be proven that the offense was committed with his consent, connivance, or neglect. The argument emphasized the legal distinction between the Company and its members, suggesting that the Company should have been prosecuted alongside the salesman. Issue 3: Nature of the milk sold at the stall - buffalo milk or toned milk A crucial argument raised was regarding the nature of the milk sold at the stall, whether it was buffalo milk or toned milk. The defense claimed that it was toned milk, a dairy product mentioned in the rules. However, this argument was dismissed by the lower courts as unsubstantiated. The judgment highlighted that had it been toned milk, the Company would have taken steps to analyze the sample accordingly, which was not done. Issue 4: Prosecution of the Company under Section 17(1) of the Act The judgment delves into the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act, which allows for the prosecution of a Company for offenses committed. It was argued that the Company should have been prosecuted along with the salesman. The judgment emphasized that natural persons can be held liable only if there is evidence of consent, connivance, or neglect on their part. The absence of such evidence led to the revision being allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the applicant. In conclusion, the judgment scrutinized the liability of the applicant, the nature of the offense, and the legal framework under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, ultimately leading to the revision being allowed and the fine to be refunded to the applicant.
|
