A partner of a firm can be held liable for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act even if the firm is not prosecuted, and the storage of adulterated food for sale constitutes "sale" under the Act.

JUDGEMENT

Das, J. :- Petitioner was convicted under S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to under to R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for three months more by the trial court. In appeal, the order of conviction and sentence has been confirmed and this revision is directed against the appellate order.

2. prosecution case is that the petitioner is a partner of the firm M/s. Trade Link Enterprises. On 6-9-1975, the Food Inspector (P.W. 1) was informed by tile Sanitary Inspector (P.W. 3) and the S.D.O. that the petitioner had stored for sale several bags of adulterated food namely, Arhar Dal and Chana Dal in his godown. These foodstuffs were unfit for human consumption. P.W. 1 alone with P.W. 9 and a police party went to he godown of the petitioner and found 192 bags of Arhar Dal and 17 bags of Chana Dal infested by insects. P.W. 3 seized the stock and kept the same in the Zima of the petitioner. He served notice on the petitioner intimating to take sample of those articles for examination by public analyst. Samples were taken from each of the Dals. These were divided into three equal parts and each part was put in a dry bottle. The bottles were labelled and sealed and one bottle from each variety was handed over to the petitioner on receipt. Then the bottles were sent for examination by public analyst, who opined that both the Dals were adulterated and did not conform to the standard. After complying with the formalities, prosecution report was filed against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner admits that he is a partner of M/s. Trade Link Enterprises and the Food Inspector inspected has godown and seized Arhar Dal and Chana Dal. These Dals were also infested by insects. He admits service of notice and the samples taken by the Food Inspector. His plea is that the Dals were stored for cattle feeding and not meant for human consumption. He denies service of copy of the report of the analyst.

4. Both the courts below have held the analyst's report was handed over to the petitioner. He was in charge of the business and his plea that the Dals were not meant for human consumption is not acceptable.

5. Admittedly, petitioner is a partner of the firm M/s. Trade Link Enterprises. The godown in which the Dals were found belongs to the aforesaid firm. The fact that the Dals were adulterated being infested by insects is also not disputed. Both the courts below have negatived the contention of the petitioner that he did not receive the report of the public analyst.

6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that as the firm has not been proceeded against, the proceeding against the petitioner is not maintainable. The petitioner was not charged being in charge of the business and there was no sale of the stock to the Food Inspector.

Section 17 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act existing at the relevant time was as follows :-

"17(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 render 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 difference 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 officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty o