ORDER :- This revision is directed against an order of the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Meerut, upholding on appeal the applicant's conviction and sentence of Rs. 1000/- as fine under S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as recorded by a Magistrate, First Class on 30th January, 1963.

2. Messrs. Edward Keventers (S) Private Limited, Delhi, who deal in dairy products and milk, had. established a stall at the Nauchandi Fair in the district of Meerut. On 15th April, 1962 at about 7 P.A. Sri Ajmal Husain, Food Inspector Meerut purchased. If Chhataks of sweetened milk from Vidya bushan who was working as salesman at the stall on payment of its price. The sample was divided into three parts and sealed then and there in three separate containers, according to the rules, one of which was handed over to Vidya Bhushan. The other was sent to the Public Analyst and the third was retained in the office of the Medical Officer of Health of the city. The Public Analyst tested the sample on the basis of the statutory standard for buffalo milk and found it to be deficient in fat contents by about 53 per cent. His report indicates that coaltar dye (erythrosine colour index No. 773) had been used for colouring the milk which was not permissible under the law. Subsequently the applicant who is the Commercial Manager of the aforesaid Company and its Salesman Vidya Bhushan were tried for an offence under S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-and Rs. 250/-respectively. Their conviction and sentences were confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge. The revision filed by Vidya Bhushan against his conviction and sentence was summarily dismissed and we are not concerned with it.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has raised two points in support of this revision. His contention is that as the applicant was not present at the stall when the sample was purchased and as he is not responsible for the production side of the Company's business, he could not be held liable for an offence under S. 16 of the Act. Learned counsel contends that Messrs. Edward Keventers (S) Private Limited is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and, therefore, to make the applicant liable for the offence alleged to have been committed by it, it must be proved that the offence had been committed with the consent and connivance of the applicant or is attributable to any neglect on his part, for which there is no evidence on the record.

4. It has been further argued that it was not the buffalo milk which was sold to the Food Inspector, rather it was toned milk which is a dairy product and which finds mention in Appendix B to the Rules and, therefore, the charge that adulterated milk was being sold at the stall has not been established against the applicant.

5. The argument that it was the toned milk which was being sold at the stall and not the pure milk was advanced before the lower Courts hut it did not appeal to them. The argument appears to be without substance because had it been toned milk which was sold to the Food Inspector the Company whose entire business reputation was at stake, in all probability, would have taken steps to get the part of the sample with it analysed as such either by the Public Analyst himself or by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta as envisaged under S. 13

of the Act.

6. A Company is a legal entity distinct from its members. It can hold and dispose of property, it can sue and be sued in its own lights. It would, therefore, have been more appropriate to have prosecuted the Company as well along with the salesman for the offence as is provided under S. 17(1) of the Act.

Section 17(2) of the Act reads :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-S. (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 atributable to any neglect on the part of,