Vicarious liability and food adulteration under PFA law: licensee acquitted absent business control, seller convicted on statutory non-compliance.

Vicarious criminal liability under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 cannot be fastened on a shop licensee merely because she owns or holds the licence; it must be shown that she was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business. On the facts, that proof was absent, so the licensee's conviction was set aside. Adulteration, however, is established once the food fails to meet the prescribed statutory standard, and the prosecution need not prove actual harm to health. The seller's conviction was therefore sustained, and the sentence was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the licensee of a food shop could be fastened with criminal liability for an adulterated sale made by her son in the absence of evidence that she was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business; (ii) Whether conviction and sentence could be sustained against the seller where the coconut oil was found to be adulterated, though no separate proof of actual harm to health was shown.

Issue (i): Whether the licensee of a food shop could be fastened with criminal liability for an adulterated sale made by her son in the absence of evidence that she was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business.

Analysis: Liability under Section 17(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 attaches only to a person who was, at the time of the offence, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business. Mere ownership or licensure of the shop is not enough. On the record, the licensee was not shown to be present at the sale, nor was there evidence that she was managing or conducting the business.

Conclusion: The conviction of the licensee was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether conviction and sentence could be sustained against the seller where the coconut oil was found to be adulterated, though no separate proof of actual harm to health was shown.

Analysis: Under Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, an article of food is adulterated if its quality or purity falls below the prescribed limits of variability. The prosecution was not required to prove actual deleterious effect on health once adulteration by reference to the prescribed standard was established. The article sold was found not to conform to the prescribed standard, and the sentence imposed below the statutory minimum was left undisturbed in view of special reasons recorded by the High Court.

Conclusion: The conviction of the seller was upheld and the sentence was not interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only for the licensee, whose conviction was quashed, while the conviction and sentence of the seller were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Vicarious criminal liability for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 cannot be imposed on a shop licensee unless it is proved that she was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business, and adulteration is established by failure to meet the prescribed statutory standard without proof of actual harm to health.

---