1960 (12) TMI 80 - SC - Indian Laws

Broad interpretation of 'person' under Food Adulteration Act holds all involved accountable. Sentence reduced despite prior conviction.

The Court interpreted the term 'person' broadly under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, holding all individuals involved in selling adulterated ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of the term 'person' in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. Liability of an employee for selling adulterated food on behalf of the employer.3. Consideration of previous convictions in sentencing.4. Application of penalties under the Act.Interpretation of the term 'person' in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954:The appellant was convicted of selling adulterated mustard oil under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Court analyzed the definition of 'sale' under the Act and emphasized that the term 'person' includes all individuals involved in selling adulterated food, not just the shop owner. The legislative intent was to penalize anyone selling adulterated food, irrespective of their role. The Court highlighted that the Act aims to safeguard public health by prohibiting the sale of adulterated food by all individuals, including agents or employees.Liability of an employee for selling adulterated food on behalf of the employer:The appellant, an employee of a shop selling edible oils, contended that only the owner of the shop could be held liable for selling adulterated food, not the employee. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that every person involved in selling adulterated food is subject to penalties under the Act. The Court emphasized that lack of knowledge about the adulteration does not absolve an employee from liability, as the Act aims to hold all individuals accountable for selling such products.Consideration of previous convictions in sentencing:The appellant had a previous conviction for a similar offence of selling adulterated mustard oil. Despite this, the Court considered special circumstances and reduced the sentence from one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 to three months of imprisonment with the fine remitted. The Court acknowledged the repetition of the offence but found special reasons to justify a lesser penalty than the prescribed minimum under the Act.Application of penalties under the Act:The Court reiterated that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act imposes strict penalties for selling adulterated food to uphold public health standards. It emphasized that all individuals involved in the sale, including employees, are subject to these penalties. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the appellant but modifying the sentence based on special reasons.In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the broad interpretation of the term 'person' under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, emphasizing the accountability of all individuals involved in selling adulterated food and the application of penalties regardless of their role.