- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA.
(2.) THE applicants are being prosecuted for an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Three contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the applicants for the. prayer that the aforesaid prosecution of the applicant be quashed.
(3.) FIRSTLY, he contended that the applicants are running a restaurant business and therefore, there is no sale of the Besan in question which was kept for preparation of eatable in the restaurants. The said contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is bereft of any sound reasoning because food Inspector after preparation of Form-6 paid the sale price of Rs. 21. The said sale to the Food Inspector by itself constitute sale within the meaning of the sale under the pfa Act and is indicative of the fact that besan was meant for sale. There is no requirement of the law that the sale to the food Inspector is not covered within the definition of sale under the Prevention of food Adulteration Act. The first contention of learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, is wholly meritless.;