P.N. Bakshi, J. - (1.) S .P. Chadha has been convicted by a first class Magistrate Agra under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for a breach of Rule 50(1) of the Rules framed thereunder. He has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo one months' rigorous imprisonment. His conviction and sentence have been affirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge. Hence this revision.
(2.) THE facts of this case revolve round a very narrow compass. The applicant is the Salesman of Brook Bond Tea India, Limited at the Depot of the Company on Gokulpura Road, Raja ki Mandi, Agra where he used to stock, sell, distribute and expose for sale tea and coffee. The Food Inspector Sri B.S. Srivastava, inspected this Depot on 28th October, 1969 at about 8 O'clock in the morning. On a demand being made by the Food Inspector for the production of the licence under which the sale was being affected, the applicant was unable to produce the same. On these allegations sanction for prosecution was obtained by the Food Inspector and the applicant was tried and convicted as above. The applicant pleaded not guilty. He admitted that he was a servant of the Brook Bond Company and that in his capacity as the Salesman of the said Company, he was stocking and exposing for sale tea and coffee. He denied that his shop was inspected by the Inspector on the relevant date and that a demand for licence was made from him. The applicant, however, admitted that on 28th October, 1969 he did not possess any licence in the name of the Company.
(3.) ON a consideration of the evidence led by the prosecution both the courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the applicant, who was a salesman of the Brook Bond Company, was stocking and exposing for sale tea and coffee at the said Depot on behalf of the Brook Bond Company. It has also been found by the courts below that on demand being made the applicant could not produce any licence. On the other hand he frankly admitted that he was not possessed of any licence on behalf of the Company. On these findings the applicant has been convicted for a breach of Rule 50(1) of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the relevant portion of which runs as follows: 50(1). No person shall manufacture, sell, stock, distribute or exhibit for sale any of the following articles of food, except under a Licence.... (h) Tea, Coffee, Cocoa and Chicory,...1 -A (9) No licencee shall employ in his work any person who is suffering from infectious, contagious or loathsome disease. It is clear that the above rule prohibits the sale of tea and coffee, except under a licence. It also contemplates that the employees of a licensee should not be suffering from any infectious, contagious or loathsome disease. In other words, the rule implies that the licencee may have in his employment able bodied persons for affecting the sale of his products.;