A company can be prosecuted and punished with fine for offences under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, where the minimum sentence is both imprisonment and fine.

( 1 ) MESSRS. J, B. Bottling Company Private Limited, New Delhi, was convicted on December 5, 1968, by a Judicial Magistrate for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and was fined Rs. 5000. 00. The appeal filed by the company against its conviction and sentence was, however, accepted by Shri J. D. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, on November 21, 1969.

( 2 ) THE allegations against the company were that out of the carbonated-water bottles manufactured by it and which were in a truck for delivery to various customers, a Food Inspector found a bottle of "gold Crush Orange" which contained a dead fly in it.

( 3 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the company while relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Rammeshwar Chotte Lal and others v Union of India and other (I. L. R. 1969 Delhi 1196 ). The Municipal Corporation of Delhi came up in appeal after obtaining special leave of this Court against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench (Jagjit Singh and Vyas Dev Misra, JJ. ). Before this Division Bench the correctness of the decision in the case of M/s. Rammeshwar Chotte Lal (supra) was challenged and the said Division Bench by its order dated October 31, 1974, REFERRED TO the following point for being considered by a larger Bench.

"whether a company as defined in section 17 of the Prevenion of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, enjoys immunity from prosecution when under the said Act it is alleged to have committed an offence to which the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 16 is not applicable and for which the minimum penalty of imprisonment for a term of not less than six months and fine of not less than one thousand rupees is provided and further if such a company does not enjoy the immunity from prosecution then on its being found guilty of such an offence can a punishment of fine be imposed on it. "

( 4 ) THE matter has now been placed before the Full Bench. For appreciating the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to notice a few provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the act Section 7 of the Act provides as under:-

"sec. 7 : No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute- (i) any adulterated food; (ii) any misbranded food; (iii) any article of food for the sale of which a licence is prescribed, except in accordance with the conditions of the licence; (iv) any article of food the sale of which is for the time being prohibited by the Food (Health) Authority in the interest of public health: or (v) any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder. "

SECTIONS 16, 17 and 18 of the Act provide as under:- "sec. 16 (1) : If any person- (a) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food__ (i) which is adulterated or misbranded or the sale of which is prohibited by the Food (Health) authority in the interest of public health ; (ii) other than an article of food REFERRED TO to in sub-clause (i) in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder; or (b) prevents a food inspector from taking a sample as authorised by this Act; or (c) prevents a food inspector from exercising any other power conferred on him by or under this Act; or (d) being a manufacturer of an article of food, has in his possession, or in any of the premises occupied by him, any material which may be employed for the purpose of adulteration; or (e) uses any report of certificate of a test or analysis made by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory or by a public analyst or any extract thereof for the purpose of advertising