Sarkaria, J. - (1.) The common questions that arise for determination in these appeals on certificate directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court are:(1) Whether for purposes of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Food Act), there is no sale of food which is provided by a hotelier to a guest when a consolidated charge is made for room and the other amenities, including food and when no rebate is allowed for any meal which may not be taken by the guest (2) Whether the expression "store", as used in Section 7 and Section 16 of the Act, means storage simpliciter of storing the sale
(2.) In answer to the first question the Full Bench of the High Court, to which these questions were referred held that when a composite charge is made for residential accommodation and food by a hotelier, there is no sale of food to the customer within the contemplation of the Food Act. On the second question, its answer was that the word "store" used in Section 7 and Section 16 of the Act means storage for sale.
(3.) The question arose in these circumstances: M/s. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. (for short, Associated Hotels) runs Hotels, one of them is Oberoi Maidens Hotel, 7, Alipur Road, Delhi, Respondent No. 1 (L. N. Tandon) is the Manager of that Hotel, while Respondent No. 2 is the Managing Director of the Associated Hotels. According to the prosecution case, on July 25, 1966, Shri P. P. Sinha, a Food Inspector of the Municipal corporation of Delhi, got from Respondent No. 1, the samples of ice-cream, milk, curd and butter for the purpose of analysis. The sealed samples were sent to the Public Analyst for examination and were found to be sub-standard and, as such 'adulterated articles of food' within the purview of Section 2 (i) (1). In the case of ice-cream, there was 1.6% deficiency in total solids and 2.9% definciency in fat.;