Judgment

KHANNA, J. :- This is an appeal by special leave by Shrimati Manibai and her son Pranjivan Morarji against the judgment of the Bombay High Court reversing on appeal the acquittal of the two appellants and convicting them under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Manibai has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, while the other appellant has been sentenced in view of special and adequate reasons to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rupees 1,000/- or in default of undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.

2. The prosecution case is that on February 16, 1968 Food Inspector Mahajan went to oil shop No. 213-215 in Kumbharwada, Bombay, Pranjivan appellant was present at the shop. The food inspector after disclosing his identity, purchased 450 grams of coconut oil from Pranjivan. The coconut oil was then divided into three parts. Each of the parts was poured into a bottle which was thereafter sealed. One of the bottles was handed over to Pranjivan, while the second bottle was sent to the public analyst whose report showed that the coconut oil was adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard. According to the standard prescribed, the butyro-refractometer reading of the coconut oil should be 34 to 35.5 and the iodine value should be between 7.5 and 10. The bytyro-refractometer reading of coconut oil purchased from Pranjivan was 36.5 and its iodine value was 16.8. A complaint was thereafter made against the two appellants. It is stated that Smt. Manibai appellant No.1 is the licensee of the shop while Pranjivan is a co-licensee of the shop from which the food inspector had purchased the coconut oil.

3. At the trial, Manibai stated that she did not know anything about the sale of the coconut oil. Pranjivan admitted having sold the coconut oil to the food inspector. he denied the other allegations.

4. The trial magistrate acquitted both the appellants on the ground that there had not been sufficient conpliance with the procedure laid down in the Act and the rules framed thereunder. On appeal the Bombay High Court reversed the judgment of the trial magistrate and held that there had not been any such deviation from the prescribed procedure as would warrant the acquittal of the accused appellants.

5. In appeal before us, Mr. Gupte on behalf of the accused appellants has contended that the High Court was in error in convicting Manibai. As against that, Mr. Wad on behalf of the State has submitted that this Court should not interfere with the conviction of Manibai. In this respect we find that Manibai was admittedly not present at the time the coconut oil was purchased by the food inspector Mahajan from Pranjivan accused. The High Court in the course of its judgment has arrived at the finding that Manibai is not in charge of nor is she actually conducting the business carried on at the shop from which the food inspector purchased the coconut oil. In the circumstances, the fact that Manibai is the licensee of the shop would not warrant her conviction. According to Section 17(1) of the Act, where an offence 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 for the conduct of the business of the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. The sub-section is followed by the proviso according to which nothing contained in the sub-section would render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. Company has been defined in Section 17 to mean any body corporate and to include a firm or other as