Petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt.

The revision petitioner was convicted under Section 16, 2 and 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') read with Rules 32 and 47 of the rules framed thereunder and released on admonition, by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras.

2. The revision petitioner is the Plant Superintendent of the Southern Bottlers Pte. Ltd., who are the manufacturers of a beverage - aerated water, known as Coca Cola. A complaint was received from Dindigul to the effect that the Coca-Cola that was being marketed there was found to cause intoxication and the complaint was forwarded to the Government for necessary action being taken, P.W. 1 Ramachandran, the Sanitary Inspector of 66-67 Dns. Madras, went to Messrs. Southern Bottles Pte. Ltd. at 26 Mount Road, at about 9.30 a.m. on 22-7-1968 and after observing the formalities, he took nine bottles of Coca Cola from the place where it was manufactured and paid the price therefor to the revision petitioner who was present then.

On analysis by the Public Analyst, it was found that the sample was sweetened artificially with the addition of 0.03 per cent of saccharine. According to the Public Analyst, though the margin of Saccharine was found to be negligible, technically it must be deemed to be misbranded under Section 2(ix)(k) of the Act, P.W. 1, after receiving the report from the Public Analyst, filed the complaint against the revisions petitioner in his capacity as the Plant Superintendent of Southern Bottlers Private Ltd.

3. Several points were raised before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate. But before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined himself to one point, namely, that since offence was committed by a company, the prosecution should have filed the complaint against the Company and the persons in charge of or responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company. He further submitted that there was no material on record to show that though the revision petitioner was the Plant Superintendent that he was either in charge of or was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company and that, therefore, his conviction cannot be sustained. There cannot be any doubt in this case that the offence, if committed, was committed by the Company.Learned counsel for the Corporation is unable to say as to why the Company was not prosecuted. However, he admitted that the Company could have been prosecuted as the offence must have been deemed to be committed by the Company as the manufacturers, Southern Bottlers Private Ltd., is a Company under Section 17 of the Act. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Corporation that the petitioner was prosecuted as a vendor as he sold Coca Cola bottles to P.W. 1 for a price and that, therefore, he would come under Sections 7 and 16 of the Act. I am unable to agree with him. Once the offence is committed by the Company, the procedure that has to be followed is only under Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 runs thus :

"Offences by Companies : (1) Where an offence under this 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;

Provided, that nothing contained in this sub-section shall pender any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act 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.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a Company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other o