9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (9) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Milk Supply Society at Papanasam was prosecuted along with two other accused for adulteration of milk an offence punishable under Section 16 (1) of the Central Act 37 of 1954. There is no doubt about the fact that the milk sold was adulterated. This fact is not disputed even by the learned Counsel for the respondent here. Accused 2 was the actual vendor of the milk and he was convicted by the tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fence under the Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. There is a proviso to this clause to the effect that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed against accused 3. If it is under Clause (1), then the prosecution must have distinctly let in evidence as to who was responsible to the Society for the conduct of the business of the Society. Only if it is under Clause (2), the prosecution will have to let in evidence about the consent or connivance or of the neglect on the part of the Secretary. The evidence that has been let in, by the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... honorary secretary was not going to the society daily and the business was left in the hands of the clerk with a check over him by the secretary. This would not make him a person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge and was responsible to the Society for the conduct of the business of the society. The prosecution could have let in evidence when particularly it was prosecutin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
