1973 (8) TMI 165

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment for two months while the other appellant has been sentenced in view of special and adequate reasons to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to undergo imprisonment for a further period of one month. 2. The prosecution case is that on February 16, 1968 Food Inspector Mahajan went to oil shop No. 213-215 in Kumbharwada, Bombay. Pranjivan appellant was present at the shop. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity purchased 450 grams of coconut oil from Pranjivan. The coconut oil was then divided into three parts. Each of the parts was poured into a bottle which was thereafter sealed. One of the bottles was handed over to pranjivan, while the second bottle was sent to the pub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibai was admittedly not present at the time the coconut oil was purchased by the food inspector Mahajan from Pranjivan accused. The High Court in the course of its judgment has arrived at the finding that Manibai is not incharge of nor is she actually conducting the business carried on at the shop from which the food inspector purchased the coconut oil. In the circumstances, the fact that Manibai is the licensee of the shop would not warrant her conviction. According to Section 17(1) of the Act, where an offence under the Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company shall be deemed to the guilty of the offence ....