VASUDEO BHATT FOOD INSPECTOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION UJJAIN Vs. GANPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will also govern the disposal of Cr. A. No. 307 of 1971.

(2.) BOTH these appeals raise a common question as to whether a person found selling adulterated milk can be convicted under section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter called the Act ).

(3.) THE facts giving rise to these appeals are simple. For selling adulated milk, respondents Jadhavrao and Ganpat have been convicted under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. They have, however, been acquitted of the offence punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act. The short question for consideration is whether a person, who is selling adulterated milk can be convicted of an offence punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act if he has not obtained a licence as required by the rules framed under the Act.