- (1.) This is an appeal filed by the Food Inspector of the Kozhikode Municipality against the order passed by the District Magistrate of Kozhikode acquitting the respondent. The respondent, the Calicut Co-operative Milk Supply Union, was the second accused in the case. The first accused was a servant employed under the Union end the other accused were the Directors and office bearers of the Union. They were all prosecuted for sale of adulterated milk, offence punishable under Section 16(1) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act -- Act 37 of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) On 19-2-1960 P.W. 1 one of the Food Inspectors of the Municipality purchased one bottle of cow's milk from the first accused at the Union's milk depot at Kooriyal lane, Kozhikode, the price was paid and the milk was duly sampled and one sample bottle was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The report of the Analyst Ext. P-3, showed that the milk was adulterated as it contained not less than five per cent of added water. At the request of the defence the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta and their report Ext. P. 4 confirmed that the milk was adulterated. The first accused admitted the sale of the milk and ha was convicted by the District Magistrate, but the respondent and others Directors and office bearers -- were acquitted. The Municipality has filed this appeal against the order acquitting the respondent, the Milk Supply Union.
(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the Municipality contends that the view taken by the learned Magistrate that the Co-operative Milk Supply Union cannot be 'roped in for an offence under Section 16 HJ of the Act for the act of the Union's servant, the first accused, is incorrect and unsustainable in law and that if milk belonging to the society has been sold, the Union could legitimately be convicted of the offence. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent argues that a company can only be held to be responsible in respect of the intention or knowledge of its agents, the officers and directors of the company and if they are to be exonerated as the Magistrate has done and against which no appeal has been filed the company as such cannot be found guilty of the offence of adulteration.;