dw 3/a produced by the respondent companytained a warranty which absolved him from liability and 3 that the ratio of living insects to dead insects number having been given in the public analysts report there being no evidence to show that the cashew nuts in question were deleterious to health and if so how much harmful effect it would have upon the health of a person companysuming them 4 743 sci/79 the mere fact of the cashew nuts being insect infested was number sufficient to bring home the charge.
pe that a particular sample of cashew nuts purchased from the respondents shop was insect infested to the extent of 20.6 per cent and that it companytained living insects that circumstance by itself was number sufficient to warrant a companyviction and 2 whether the respondent was protected by sub s. 2 of s. 19 of the act inasmuch as he had purchased the cashew nuts in scaled tins from a dealer in cashew nuts under the invoice ext.
from the judgment and order dated 26 5 1972 of the delhi high companyrt in criminal appeal number 177/71.
these samples were duly forwarded to the public analyst delhi who by his three reports dated august 3 1968 in form iii exts.
on august 1 1968 three samples of cashew nuts were taken from its shop by the two food inspectors s. l. mehra p.w.
of these two were insect infested to the extent fr of 20.6 and 20.7 per cent and the third to the extent of 5.63 per cent.
there can be numberdoubt that m s. narain dass tek chand had purchased the cashew nuts in question from sri venkateswara cashews.
the magistrate 1st class delhi acquitted the respondent holding 1 that the respondent was a sleeping partner residing at kanpur and that there was numberhing to show that he was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business which was carried on at the shop of the firm at khari baoli delhi 2 that alternatively the invoice ext.
the respondent is a partner of the firm m s. narain dass tek chand khari baoli delhi.
p. soni s. n. mehta miss kamlesh and v. d. chopra for the respondent.
dw 3/a and they were of sw mark.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 195 of 1973.
dw 3/a which companytained a description of the goods as sw best bormia.
pe pe/1 and pe/2 found that all the three samples taken were insect infested.
ramesh chand dw 3 manager of the firm states that the goods are purchased and sold by the firm in wholesale at its shop at khari baoli delhi.
3 from three sealed tins supplied by sri venkateswara cashews panruti.
the facts of the prosecution case are these.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sen j. in this appeal on certificate from a judgment of the delhi high companyrt by which it acquitted the respondent of an offence punishable under s. 16 1 a of the prevention of food adulteration act 1954 for the alleged companytravention of s. 7 1 thereof two questions arise namely 1 whether even though the public analyst found in one of the reports ext.
he states that the cashew nuts were purchased under the invoice ext.
according to this witness all the three partners of the firm reside at kanpur.
they companye to delhi in a month or two for scrutinising the accounts.
the firm is engaged in wholesale business in dry fruits including cashew nuts which it gets from different manufacturers.
that takes us to the next ground namely whether the respondent having sold cashew nuts from sealed tins purchased from the supplier sri venkateswara cashews panruti under the invoice ext.
1 and h. k. bhanumber p.w.
s. desai b. p. maheshwari suresh sethi and b. bhaduraj for the appellant.
