- (1.) THE appeal is by Messrs Tara Oil and Ginning Mills and Sew Doyal Kanoria who have been convicted by a learned Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with section 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereafter to be referred to as the Act) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each. In default of payment of the fine the second accused was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Two other accused, namely, accused nos. 3 and 4, were, however, given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The learned Magistrate further gave direction under sec. 11 (5) (b) of the Act for the destruction of the seized oil by the Food Inspector or the District Health Officer at the cost of the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The revisional petition has been filed against the said order of destruction, which has been heard along with the appeal.
(2.) THE case for the prosecution is as follows : on 31. 12. 59 Shri Sailesh Chandra Sen, a Food Inspector of the Calcutta Corporation, inspected the godown of the Tara Oil and Ginning Mills (accused No. 1) at P/38/l Strand Road, Calcutta. The accused No. 2 is the representative of accused No. 1. Inside the godown there were several tanks containing mustard oil. The Food Inspector took samples of the mustard oil from five of the tanks for analysis. On analysis by a Public Analyst (P. W. 4) no adulteration was found in four of the samples, but the fifth sample of oil taken from tank No. 1 inside the godown was found adulterated. Accordingly, prosecution was launched against the accused person on the complaint lodged by P. W. 1 on obtaining sanction of the health Officer. He also seized oil of the tank which was found adulterated and left the same in the custody of the accused No. 2. P. W. 1 also filed an application for destruction of the seized oil under section 11 (5) (b) of the Act.
(3.) THE accused pleaded not guilty and raised various contentions in the court below, all of which were overruled by the learned Presidency Magistrate. It has been urged that the appellant No. 1 Tara Oil and Ginning Mills is not a "person" within the meaning of section 7 and section 16 of the Act and so, it was not liable to be proceeded against under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with section 7 (1) of the Act. The word "person" has not been defined in the Act and so we have to fall back on the definition of "person" as given in the General Clauses Act. Under section 3 (42) the term "person" has been defined to include "any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not. " Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act makes a "company" as well as every person, who, at the time an offence under the Act was committed by the company, "was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company", liable to be proceeded against and punished for the offence. Under the Explanation to section 17 a "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals. It has, however, been contended that the prosecution has not given any evidence to prove that the appellant No. 1 is a "company" or a "firm" or may be said to be an "association of persons" and that in the absence of any such evidence the word "mill" should be given its ordinary dictionary meaning. It, however, appears that there is evidence on the record to show that the business of the concern in question is carried out in the name of Messrs Tara Oil and Ginning Mills. The appellant No. 1 engaged a chartered engineer to inspect the godown in premises 58/1/1, Strand Road and correspondence passed between them in this connection. See also Ext. C. So, appellants' contention in this respect must be rejected.;