JUDGMENT

SARKARIA, J. :—The common questions that arise for determination in these appeals on certificate directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court are :

(1) Whether for purposes of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Food Act), there is no sale of food which is provided by a hotelier to a guest when a consolidated charge is made for room and the other amenities, including food and when no rebate is allowed for any meal which may not be taken by the guest?

(2) Whether the expression "store", as used in Section 7 and Section 16 of the Act, means storage simpliciter of storing the sale?

2. In answer to the first question the Full Bench of the High Court, to which these questions were referred held that when a composite charge is made for residential accommodation and food by a hotelier, there is no sale of food to the customer within the contemplation of the Food Act. On the second question, its answer was that the word "store" used in Section 7 and Section 16 of the Act means storage for sale.

3. The question arose in these circumstances :

M/s. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. (for short, Associated Hotels) runs Hotels, one of them is Oberoi Maidens Hotel, 7, Alipur Road, Delhi, Respondent No. 1 (L. N. Tandon) is the Manager of that Hotel, while Respondent No. 2 is the Managing Director of the Associated Hotels. According to the prosecution case, on July 25, 1966, Shri P. P. Sinha, a Food Inspector of the Municipal corporation of Delhi, got from Respondent No. 1, the samples of ice-cream, milk, curd and butter for the purpose of analysis. The sealed samples were sent to the Public Analyst for examination and were found to be sub-standard and, as such adulterated articles of food within the purview of Section 2 (i) (1). In the case of 623 ice-cream, there was 1.6% deficiency in total solids and 2.9% definciency in fat.

4. The Assistant Municipal Prosecutor thereupon filed four separate complaints under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act for prosecution of the Respondents in the court of the Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi. It was alleged in the complaints that the articles of food of which samples were taken, had been stored for sale in the said Hotel. The accused raised factual as well as legal pleas in defence. Respondents inter alia contended that the sampling was not done in their presence and consequently, the entire proceedings, being violative of the mandatory requirement of law, were vitiated and illegal. A common stand taken by both the Respondents, was that no articles of food are sold in this Hotel to the non-resident visitors, or the public generally; that the hoteliers provide residential accommodations, services and other amenities, including meals, only to the resident customers against the composite charge and that no rebate is allowed for food if a resident customer chooses not to eat it.

5. The Magistrate accepted the defence plea that the samples had been taken in the absence of Respondent No. 1 and there had been breach of the law on that score. He further, held that the food articles of which samples were taken had not been stored for sale. In the result the Magistrate acquitted both the Respondents. Against this acquittal, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi carried an appeal to the High Court. The Division Bench before which that appeal came up for hearing referred three questions (including the two set out above) to a Full Bench for opinion. Thereafter, the Division Bench merely on the basis of the answers returned by the Full Bench upheld the acquittal and dismissed the appeals.

6. It will be useful at the outset to have a look at the scheme and content of the relevant provisions of the Act.

7. The broad aim of the Act is to ensure the sale and supply of pure food to the public. With that end in view, the Act prevents adulteration of food articles.

8. For the purpose of the Act, an article of food is deemed to be adulterated, if it falls under any of the clauses (a) to (1) o