TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (6) TMI 107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the said Firm. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and expressed his intention to take sample from mustard oil and mustard seed stored and exposed for sale there. The Food Inspector took sample of some quantity of mustard oil and mustard seed in presence of the local witness called for the purpose and observed formalities. One part of the sample of the articles was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and report. The samples of mustard oil and mustard seeds were sold to the Food Inspector and out of the articles sold as sample one part as already stated was sent for analysis. It was found that the mustard seed and the mustard oil were adulterated with argemone seeds and argemone oil respectively. The learned Magistrate issued processes and charges were framed. One of the partners was, however, discharged. The charge was framed only against Kishori Mohan. The defence, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination and the statement of the accused at the time of trial, ig that the sample in respect of the mustard oil was not taken from the stock manufactured by the company. It has been alleged that the sample was taken out of the mustard oil kept in tins upon a lorry w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iduals. Clearly, therefore, the firm before us being a partnership firm comes under the definition of the company. Section 7 of the Act says that no person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale or store or sell or distribute any adulterated food. There is prohibition of selling storing or distributing adulterated food, Sv 16 of the Act relates to penalties under the provision of the Act. According to Section 16(1)(a)(i), if any person whether by himself or by any other person, on his behalf imports into India or manufactures for sale or stores, selling or distributes any article of food which is adulterated shall be punishable with imprisonment as- mentioned in- the section itself. Section 17 speaks about, as we have already remarked,, the offence which can be committed by companies. The firm being a company under the definition is liable to punishment if there is commission of any offence under the Act. Now for the purpose of trial charges are to be framed when a person is proceeded against on the allegation of commission of an offence. Without charge there cannot be any trial in a case like the present one and there is no dispute about it. If any perso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e he found Kishori Mohan who described himself as the seller and person in charge of the said Firm. The Food Inspector has told that he ex- pressed his intention to take samples of mustard oil and mustard seeds which were stored and exposed for sale there meaning at the said premises No. 243, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road. About the storage and the keeping of the articles for sale at the said premises there has been no cross-examination from the side of the accused. This statement was not challenged. The witness has stated that in presence of the witnesses he purchased 375 grams of mustard oil at a cost of Re. 1/- which was paid and also 750 grams of mustard seeds at a cost of ₹ 1.20 P. which was paid again for the purpose of samples. For this a cash memo was given by the accused Kishori Mohan and that has been marked exhibit. There is no challenge about the cash memo as well. It was signed by Kishori Mohan himself duly endorsed by a witness. About this sale of the articles by Kishori Mohan again there has been no challenge. The memos showing seizure of the samples have been marked exhibits. There also we find endorsement of Kishori Mohan showing receipt of the copies thereof....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 14 tins of mustard oil loaded in the same lorry and the? sample was taken by the Food Inspector from those tins. However, on the clear evidence on record we must hold that the sample of mustard oil was taken from the tin containing mustard oil manufactured by the Company within the premises of the mill of the Firm and when there is the evidence that it was adulterated, the appellant Kishori Mohan was rightly convicted Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Act in respect of the mustard oil. 7. Coming to the legality of conviction in respect of the mustard seeds seized from the premises of the Firm which were stored and exposed for sale as will appear from the charge, the contention of Mr. Banerjee is that the said seeds were purchased and to avoid any chance of adulteration the Firm purchased two screening machines and the seeds were awaiting screening and that it was not meant for sale. With regard to the question of screening the evidence of D. W, 2 is that the mustard seeds of which sample was taken and which were seized were kept as rejected and not for manufacturing oil. The defence witness D. W. 2 does not say anywhere that the said seeds were stored there ....