any adulterated food The manufactures M s, Ahmed Oomer Bhoy, Bombay became liable because they were directly selling the adulterated article through their branch office at Delhi.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 13 9 1978 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision No.
It was further alleged that this adulterated article of food was supplied sold to M s. Gainda Mull Hem Raj by M s. Ahmed Oomer Bhoy on August 20, 1976 through its Sales Managers at Delhi, I. K. Nangia and Y. P. Bhasin.
5 and were incharge of and responsible to it for the companyduct of its business at the time of companymission of offences by accused No.
R. Lalit, R. Bana, M. N. Shroff and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellant.
The Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi by his order dated April 1, 1978 found that there was a prima facie case against M s. Ahmed Oomer Bhoy, the manufacturers of the Postman brand refined groundnut oil, their distributors at Delhi M s. Gainda Mull Hem Raj and M s. Amar Provision Store, the retailer, as well as against Y. A. Khan, the Quality Control Manager, Ahmed Mills, but declined to issue any 1020 process against the respondents I. K. Nangia and Y. P. Bhasin, the two Sales Managers of M s. Ahmed Oomer Bhoy at Delhi observing that though they had effected the sale of the adulterated article of food they were number companycerned with the manufacture of the article in question but had only effected the sale thereof.
The words were incharge of and responsible to it for the companyduct of its business are wide enough to include all the business activities of M s. Ahmed Oomer Bhoy at Delhi.
L. Arora, R. S. Sodhi and H. C. Gulati for Respondent No.
Further, he goes on to, say, that they were incharge of and responsible to M s. Ahmed Oomer Bhoy for the companyduct of their business in Delhi at that time.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
5 and accused I. K. Nangia and P. Bhasin are the Sales Managers Local Branch of accused No.
62 dated August 20, 1976.
B. Ganatra, I. N. Shroff and H. S. Parihar for Respondent No.
In the companyplaint, the material allegations are as follows That the adulterated article of food was supplied sold to M s. Gainda Mull Hem Raj on 20 8 76 by M s. Ahmed Oomer Bhoy through its sales managers at Delhi I. K. Nangia and Y. P. Bhasin.
The companyplaint makes a specific allegation that the respondents were incharge of and were responsible to their employers for the companyduct of their business at Delhi.
On June 23, 1977 the Delhi Administration filed a companyplaint under s.7 i read with s.16 1 a and s.17 against 1 M s. Ahmed Oomar Bhoy, Ahmed Mills, Bombay, manufacturers of the well known postman brand or refined groundnut oil, 2 their distributors M s. Gainda Mull Hem Raj, New Delhi, a partnership firm, and its managing Partner Mehar Chand Jain, M s. Amar Provision General Store, Netaji Nagar Market, New Delhi and its owner Amrik Lal, the retailer, 4 A. Khan, Manager Quality Control, Ahmed Mills appointed by the manufacturers as the person responsible under s. 17 2 of the Act, and 5 the two Sales Managers, Delhi Branch of M s. Ahmed Oomer Bhoy, manufacturers, I. K. Nangia and Y. P. Bhasin.
Now, the person actually effecting the sale of an adulterated article of food is directly liable under s.7 i of the Act, which reads No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute.
It was alleged that on August 31, 1976, S.D. Sharma, Food Inspector, New Delhi Municipal Committee lifted a sample of Postman brand refined groundnut oil from M s. Amar Provision General Store, which was sold supplied to it by M s. Gainda Mull Hem Raj on August 20, 1976, and the same by the Public Analyst by his report dated September 9, 1976 was found to be adulterated due to the presence of castor oil Not an edible oil .
It cannot be said that there is numbermaterial for presuming that these respondents had number companymitted an offence and, therefore, it was number open to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to companye to the companyclusion that there was numberbasis for proceeding against them.
It is a companymon ground that they have a Delhi Office at 2 A/3, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, and 1021 that the two respondents I.K. Nangia and Y. P. Bhasin are the Sales Managers.
271/78.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J. In this appeal, by special leave, from the judgment of the Delhi High Court, two questions arise which are one of very general importance.
That accused Y. A. Khan is the Quality Control Manager of accused No.
S. D. Sharma, Food Inspector, PW 1 has stated during the enquiry under s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the adulterated article of food in question was sold by them to the distributors M s. Gainda Mull Hem Raj vide bill No.
243 of 1979.
