Counsel for the appellant did number challenge before us either the order of companyviction or the order of sentence passed against him by the High Court, which, as aforesaid, companyfirmed the companyviction and restored the order.
Appeal by certificate under Article 134 1 c of the Con stitution of India from the judgment and order dated June 20, 1969 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi in Criminal Revision No.
On these grounds he partially allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant before.
The High Court, however, granted a certificate under Art.
On an appeal by the appellant and his companyaccused, the said Budh Ram, the Additional Sessions Judge allowed Budh Rams appeal and set aside the order of companyviction passed against him on the ground that though he and the said Bhattacharya were partners in the firm which carried on the said shop, there was numberhing to show that Budh Ram was in charge of the said shop or its business or was in any way responsible for the sale of articles sold in the shop.
Against that order, the Municipal Corporation filed a revision petition in the High Court urging that in view of the mandatory provisions of s. 16 of the Act providing for the companypulsory miniMum sentence, the Additional sEssions Judge ought number to have interfered with and reduced the sentence imposed by the Trial Magistrate.
of sentence passed by the Trial Magistrate.
Regarding the sentence awarded to him, the Additional Sessions Judge remarked that a the case was number companyered by S. 2 i j of the Act, but was one which amounted to violation of rules 23 to 30 of the Rules framed under the Act, b that there was numberhing in the evidence to show that the use of the unpermitted companyl tar dye in the manufacture of the patisa in question rendered them injurious to health, and c that there was numberallegation of the appel lant having companymitted a similar offence before.
These were sold to him from a lot exposed for sale.
172 of 1969.
1 34 c of the Constitution.
he was granted bail.
The appellant filed this appeal on the strength of that certificate.
On March 15, 1967, wit.
The High Court accepted that companytention and setting aside the order of sentence, as modified by the Additional Sessions Judge, restored the order of sentence passed by the Trial Magis trate.
385 of 1968.
F. Dean, a Food Inspector in the employment of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, went to the said shop and purchased patisa which were sold to him by the appellant.
The shop was owned by one Budh Ram and one A. K. Bhattacharya.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
So far as the appellant was companycerned, the Additional Sessions Judge held that he was an employee of the firm, companycerned with the sales, that the prosecution had led sufficient evidence to establish its case against him, and therefore, his companyviction companyld number be interfered with.
A companyplaint to that effect was filed before the Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi, who, after recording evidence, found the appellant and the said Budh Ram guilty under s. 7 1 read with S. 16 1 of the Act, and sentenced each of the two accused to simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.
Hardev Singh, for the appellant.
Jindra Lal and B. P. Maheshwari, for the respondent.
The order awarding the said fine was number interfered with.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. In March 1967, the appellant was an employee in a sweetmeat shop, known as Bengal Sweet Shop being shop No.
6, Sector 11, in Ramakrishna Puram, New Delhi.
The Food Inspector then divided the patisa into three portions and packed each of them into sealed bottles, one of which was handed over by him to the appellant.
On an analysis of the sample by the Public Analyst appointed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, XXXVII of 1954 it was found that the patisa were prepared with unpermitted companyl tar dye, and therefore, were adulterated food stuff.
1,000, in default imprisonment for a further period of three months.
