Liability for sale of adulterated food extends to employees and agents; ignorance is not a general defence.

The Act treats "sale" of adulterated food broadly, covering actual sale, exposure for sale, possession for sale and attempts to sell, so liability extends to an employee or agent who personally sells adulterated food and is not confined to the shop owner. Section 19 does not allow a general defence of ignorance of the food's nature or quality, except within its limited terms. The text also notes that special and adequate reasons may justify a sentence below the statutory minimum, including where the offender is only an employee and did not appear to profit personally.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an employee or agent who actually sells adulterated food is liable under the Act even if he is not the shop owner and alleges lack of knowledge; (ii) Whether special and adequate reasons existed to reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum.

Issue (i): Whether an employee or agent who actually sells adulterated food is liable under the Act even if he is not the shop owner and alleges lack of knowledge.

Analysis: The expression "sale" in the Act is wide and includes actual sale, exposure for sale, possession for sale, and attempt to sell. Section 7 prohibits every person from selling adulterated food, whether by himself or by any person on his behalf, and Section 16 makes contravention punishable. Section 19 does not permit ignorance of the nature or quality of the food as a defence except in the limited circumstances there stated. The prohibition is directed to all persons who sell adulterated food, and the liability is not confined to the owner of the shop.

Conclusion: The employee who actually sold the adulterated food was liable and the conviction was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether special and adequate reasons existed to reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum.

Analysis: Although the offence was a repetition of a similar offence, the appellant was only an employee, there was no indication that he personally profited from the transaction, and the surrounding circumstances were treated as sufficient to justify departure from the minimum punishment prescribed by the Act.

Conclusion: The sentence was reduced below the statutory minimum and the fine was remitted.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was maintained, but the punishment was substantially reduced on the basis of special and adequate reasons.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who actually sells adulterated food is liable under the Act even if acting as an employee or agent, and lack of knowledge is not a general defence; separate special reasons may justify reduction below the statutory minimum sentence.

---