Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 10 9 71 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision No.
The appellants preferred an appeal, but the appeal was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and the companyvic tion was companyfirmed with only a slight modification in the sentence.
Hence the present appeal by special leave obtained from this Court.
This led to the filing of a revision application in the High Court by the appellants, but the revision application was also unsuccessful.
N. Anand and R.N. Sachthey for the Respondent.
The first companytention raised on behalf of the appellant in support of the appeal was that the companyviction was bad inasmuch as it rested solely on the evidence of Bhanot and one other Food Inspector, namely, Bhatnagar, who happened to companye there at the tinge of taking the sample and there was numberindependent witness to support the prosecution case.
N. Mulla, Miss Uma Mehta, R.K. Mehta, S.K. Bagga and Mrs. S. Bagga, for the Appellants.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The 2nd appellant also claimed that he was never an employee of the l st appellant and while he was going to his house after pur chasing sarson oil for his personal use, he was caught by two or three persons near Maharani Bagh and a sample was taken from the oil which he was carrying and his signatures were obtained by threat on certain papers.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Delhi companyfirming the companyviction of the appellants under section 7 i read with section 16 1 a i of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Mookerjee, B.P. Maheshwari, Suresh Sethi and Klain for the Intervener.
310 of 1970.
The learned Judicial Magistrate accepted the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution and rejected the defence version and held that the appellants were guilty of the offence of selling lin seed oil companytaining artificial dye which was an offence punishable under section 7 i read with section 16 1 a i .
287/ 71.
The Public Analyst reported that the sample was misbranded as it was of Lin Seed Oil and it was adulterated due to the presence of artificial dye.
On the strength of this report, the appellants were chargesheeted under section 7 i read with section 16 1 a i before the Judicial Magistrate, Delhi.
He divided the sample into three parts and sent one part to the Public Analyst for analysis, handed over the other part to the 2nd appellant and retained the 3rd part with him.
The defence of the 1st appellant was that the 2nd appellant was at numbertime engaged by him as the salesman and numbermustard oil was purchased by Bhanot from the 2nd appellant.
On 23rd June, 1969 Bhanot, a Food Inspector went to the shop of the 1st appellant and finding the 1st appellant there as a sales man, took from him a sample of mustard oil for analysis after paying its purchase price.
The prosecution case was that all material times the 2nd appellant was the owner of a grocery shop situate at Maharani Bagh, New Delhi and the 1st appellant was employed as a salesman in the shop.
