9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (11) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ict of Meerut. On 15th April, 1962 at about 7 P.M. Sri Ajmal Husain, Food Inspector Meerut purchased 16 Chhataks of sweetened milk from Vidya Bhushan who was working as salesman at the stall on payment of its price. The sample was divided into three parts and sealed then and there in three separate containers, according to the rules, one of which was handed over to Vidya Bhushan. The other was sent to the Public Analyst and the third was retained in the office of the Medical Officer of Health of the city. The Public Analyst tested the sample on the basis of the statutory standard for buffalo milk and found it to be deficient in fat contents by about 53 per cent. His report indicates that coaltar dye (erythrosine colour index No. 773) had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds mention in Appendix B to the Rules and, therefore, the charge that adulterated milk was being sold at the stall has not been established against the applicant. 5. The argument that it was the toned milk which was being sold at the stall and not the pure milk was advanced before the lower Courts but it did not appeal to them. The argument appears to be without substance because had it been toned milk which was sold to the Food Inspector the Company whose entire business reputation was at stake, in all probability, would have taken steps to get the part of the sample with it analysed as such either by the Public Analyst himself or by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta as envisaged under Section 13 of the Act. 6. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch evidence on the record. 8. In his statement before the trial Court, the applicant had stated that he had no connection with the production side of the Company's business. There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant in his capacity as commercial manager of the Company had anything to do with the preparation of sweetened milk or that he was necessarily responsible for organising its sales on behalf of the Company. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the applicant too was liable for punishment under Section 16 of the Act because in his opinion the words any person used in this section are wide enough to include not only the principal but also the agent, manager or the servant acting on behalf of the former, is bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
