In the light of the evidence, Ram prakash Oberoi was acquitted, as, according to the Magistrate, he had discharged the onus which lay upon him in order to avail himself the defence under s. 19 2 of the Act.
It is against this order that the appellants are filed this appeal by special leave.
He gave evidence that the curry powder was manufactured by the second appellant companypany and that it had been sold in tins to the companycern of which Ram Prakash Oberoi was the proprietor.
S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor General of India, B. Maheshwari, Suresh Sethi, R. K. Maheshwari and N. K. Jain, for the respondent.
M. Singhvi, S. K. Dhingra, K. C. Sharma, S. , Sengupta, O. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 22, 1972 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi in Cr.
The High Court also dismissed the revision.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW, J.The Municipal Corporation of Delhi filed a companyplaint on September 10, 1970, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Delhi against the appellants under s. 7 read with s. 16 f of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter called the Act, alleging that they gave a false Waranty in respect of the curry powder manufactured by them.
On November 28, 1968, the Food Inspector went to the shop of one Ram Prakash Oberoi and found that he was storing for sale curry powder.
In response to the summons, the appellants appeared and filed an application for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the companyplaint was incompetent.
The first appellant was examined in the case.
sale of adulterated curry powder to M s. T. D. Bhagwan Dass, the proprietor of which was accused, Ram Prakash Oberoi through bill Ex.
93 of 1972.
In the companycluding portion of the judgment which was pronounced on October 25, 1969, the Magistrate observed that it is open to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to institute a companyplaint against the warrantor companycerned for issuing a false warranty for the.
The appellants then filed a revision against that order before the High Court.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
A companyplaint Was filed against Ram Prakash Oberoi by the Food Inspector alleging that he companymitted an offence under S. 16 read with s. 7 of the Act.
DWI A out of which a sample bearing No.
The, Food Inspector purchase three sealed tins of curry powder from him and after following the procedure enjoined by the Act, sent one sample to the Public Analyst, who, after examining it, sent his report that the sample was adulterated.
The learned Magistrate dismissed the application.
The appellants filed a revision from the order to the Additional Sessions Judge.
49 of 1973.
That was dismissed.
Parkash Oberoi, in his statement under s. 342, stated that he had purchased the curry powder in sealed tins from the appellants under a warranty given by them and that he solo the curry powder in the same companydition in which he had purchased it from the appellants.
2385 was taken by P.W. 2 from Ram Prakash Oberoi.
He also admitted the issue of a warranty on behalf of the second appellant.
