Necessity of taking license under rule 50 of the Rules.

This is a revision filed by the petitioner who is convicted under Sec.16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one day, i.e., till the rising of the Court and also to pay a fine of Rs.500 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner-accused is the salesman of Broke Bond India Limited, Kothapet Depot, Guntur. The petitioner was storing and selling coffee and tea powder of that company without paying licence fee and running the trade. A notice therefore was issued to him on 12.2.1988 directing to pay licence fee of Rs.50 plus belated fee of Rs.13 totalling to an amount of Rs.63, but the petitioner did not pay the same. Thus the petitioner has violated Rule 50 of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Food Inspector filed the complaint stating the above facts. The petitioner when examined denied the offence. The complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 and another as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On behalf of the petitioner D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D5 marked. The trial Court after considering the entire material on record found that the petitioner has contravened Rule 50 as he was running the trade without obtaining licence. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court which confirmed the order of the trial Court and dismissed the said appeal. Against that judgment, the present appeal is filed.

3. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that it is a fact that the conducting of business in food articles without obtaining licence as contemplated under Rule 50 amounts to an offence but the authorities have not framed any rules as to who is the licensing authority, what is the prescribed pro forma for issuing licence and how much amount has to be paid for obtaining licence etc., and therefore, in the absence of any rules the petitioner is not obliged to obtain licence and there is no contravention of Rule 50 on the part of the petitioner and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that even though there are no rules when the Food Inspector has issued notice the petitioner ought to have paid the licence fee and obtained licence and therefore there are no merits in the present revision and it is liable to be dismissed.

5. In view of the above stated circumstances, the only point to be considered is whether the petitioner is guilty of the said offence for not obtaining licence.

6. To appreciate the above contentions it is relevant to extract Rule 50 of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act:

“Rule 50. Conditions of licence: (1) No person shall manufacture, sell, stock, distribute or exhibit for sale any of the following articles of food, except under a licence;

(a) to (v)

(1-A) One licence may be issued by the licensing authority for one or more articles of food and also for different establishment or premises in the same local area.

(1-B) The name and address of the Director or Manager, as the case may be, nominated by the company under Rule 12-B shall be mentioned in the licence.

(2) The State Government or the local authority shall appoint licensing authorities.

(3) A licensing authority may, with the approval of the State Government or the local authority by an order in writing, delegate the power to sign licences and such other powers as may be specified in the order to any other person under his control.

(4) If the articles of food are manufactured, stored or exhibited for sale at different premises situated in more than one local area, separate applications shall be made and a separate licence shall be issued in respect of such premises not falling within the same local area; Provided that the itinerant vendors who have no specified place of business shall be licensed to conduct business in a par