A companyplaint was thereafter made against the two appellants.
At the trial, Manibai stated that she did number know anything about the sale of the companyonut oil.
The companyonut oil was then divided into three parts.
He denied the other allegations.
One of the bottles was handed over to pranjivan, while the second bottle was sent to the public analyst whose report showed that the companyonut oil was adulterated as it did number companyform to the prescribed standard.
Each of the parts was poured into a bottle which was thereafter sealed.
It is stated that Smt.
Pranjivan admitted having sold the companyonut oil to the food inspector.
Pranjivan appellant was present at the shop.
Manibai appellant No.
1 is the licensee of the shop while Pranjivan is companylicensee of the shop from which the food inspector had purchased the companyonut oil.
The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity purchased 450 grams of companyonut oil from Pranjivan.
Khanna, J. This is an appeal by special leave by Smt.
