JUDGMENT

D.D. Seth, J. - This reference has been made by the lezrned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Agra and arises out of the following circumstances.

2. The Nagar Swasthya Adhikari of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, filed a complaint against Dharamvir, who is one of the applicants in this reference, and alleged in the complaint that Dharamvir held a licence, which was granted to him by the Nagar Mahapalika, for running the Agra Bottling Company and that some bottles of 'Gold Spot' were taken possession of by Sri V.N. Singh, Food Inspector from the premises of the Agra Bottling Company as samples. It was further mentioned in the complaint that the bottles were not properly labelled and thus there was a contravention of rule 32 (a) (h) of the rules framed under the Prevention on Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the rules). 'After the original complaint had been filed on 25th May 1967 on an application filed by the learned counsel for the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, before the trial Magistrate the other partners of the Agra Bottling company were also impleaded as accused in the case. This, six more persons were impleaded as accused and were summoned. The learned Magistrate, however after recording the evidence o the Food Inspectors framed charges against four persons only including Dharamvir. Against the framing of the charge by the learned Magistrate Dharamvir and three others preferred a revision out of which this reference has arisen. The learned Additional District Magistrate (J), Agra, has recommended that the charges framed against the applicants be quashed and the applicants be discharged.

3. I have heard Sri S.S. Tewari, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri B.C. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra.

4. This reference was listed before me on different dates and lengthy arguments have been advanced by both the learned counsel. At the request of Sri B.C. Saxena I summoned the bottles of `Gold Spot' and they were produced before me in Court., Those bottles bear the following statement inscribed on them :-

"Contains permitted colours and part II preservative, manufactured under authority of Parles Bottling Co. Private Ltd. Bombay".

5. Sri B.C. Saxena has strenuously argued that the words' under authority of ' contained in the inscription on the bottles show that the manufactures were the Agra Bottling Co. and not Parle Bottling Co. Private Ltd. According to Sri Saxena the words' under authority of' are very close and according to the dictionary meaning of those words it must he held that the manufactures were the Agra Bottling Co. and not the Parles Bottling Co.

6. Before I proceed to discuss the case of Dharamvir I may mention that as far as the other three applicants, namely, Pravin Chandra, Mugat Lal and Chandu Lal are concerned there is no difficulty. Their names were not included in the original complaint which was filed by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari of the Nagar IMahapalika, Agra, on the report of the Food Inspector. (The original complaint was only against Dharamvir.1 The names of the other three accused were impleaded on an application made on behalf of the complainant. There was thus no evidence before the trial Magistrate against the three accused when they were ordered to be impleaded as accused. Thus the order of their implication was not in accordance with law and the reference as far as those three accused is concerned is accepted and the charges framed against Pravin Chandra, Mugat Lal and Chandu Lal are quashed.

7. As far as Dharmvir is concerned it is urged by Sri B.C. Saxena that since he was the representative of the Agra Bottling company and since the name and address of the manufacturer was not inscribed on the bottles there was a clear contravention of rule 32 of the rules. Rule 32 of the rules deals with the contents of the label and the relevant portion of the rule reads as follows :-

"Unless otherwise provided in these rules there shall be specified on ev