P.B.Mukharji, J. - (1.) The petitioners are Messrs. Shipping and Clearing (Agents) Private Limited. They obtained this Rule against the order of conviction under Section 7 (i) read with Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and a fine of Rs. 100 (one hundred), passed by the Presidency and Municipal Magistrate. Calcutta, on the 16th January 1963.
(2.) The facts of the case lie within a small compass. The offending article, namely, adulterated tea was found in the godown at No. 1, Satya Doctor Road. The Food Inspector took the sample of adulterated tea from the godown. It is found as a fact that Ramprosad Sukul, the second accused was the gate keeper and the durwan of the petitioner company at the said godown. This second accused is now absconding. The chemical analysis and the analyst's report confirmed that the tea was adulterated within the meaning of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act having exceeded the permissible limits of crude fibre. The learned Magistrate found as a fact on the evidence that the second accused, Ramprosad Sukul now absconding opened the godown and that the food Inspector after taking the samples, made over two parts of the two samples, as required, to Ramprosad Sukul. It has also been found by the learned Magistrate that the petitioner who is accused No. 1 has a godown at the disputed premises and that accused No. 2 is its gate-keeper.
(3.) The defence was that the petitioner was not the owner of the godown and that they were not responsible for bringing the adulterated tea into that godown. Hence it is not liable for the offence under the Act.;