The Assistant Municipal Prosecutor thereupon filed four separate companyplaints under s. 7 read with s. 16 of the Act for prosecution of the Respondents in the companyrt of the Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi.
The Magistrate accepted the defence plea that the samples had been taken in the absence of Respondent 1 and there had been breach of the law on that score.
Thereafter, the Division Bench, merely on the basis of the answers returned by the Full Bench upheld the acquittal and dismissed the appeals.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 24th April, 1970 of Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.
It was alleged in the companyplaints that the articles of food of which samples were taken, had been stored for sale in the said Hotel.
The accused raised factual as well as legal pleas in defence.
11,6, 63 and 64 of 1968.
In answer to the first question, the Full Bench of the High Court, to which these questions were referred, held that when a companyposite charge is made for residential accommodation and food by a hotelier, there is numbersale of food to the customer within the companytemplation of the Food Act.
On the second question, its answer was that the word store used in s. 7 and s. 16 of the Act means storage for sale.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos 101, 104 of 1971.
Whether the expression store, as used in section 7 and section 16 of the Act, means storage simpliciter or storing for sale ?
Against this acquittal.
Respondent 1 L. N. Tandon is the Manager of that Hotel, while Respondent 2 is the Managing Director of the Associated Hotels.
S. Desai, D. P. Maheshwari and Naresh Sethi for the Appellants.
K. Sen, M. C. Bhandare, Rameshwar Nath and M. K. Gupta for Respondents.
Respondents inter alia companytended that the sampling was number done in their presence, and companysequently, the entire proceedings, being violative of the mandatory requirement of law, were vitiated and illegal.
the Municipal Corporation of Delhi carried an appeal to the High Court.
The questions arose in these circumstances M s. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. for short, Associated Hotels runs Hotels, one of them is Oberoi Maidens Hotel, 7, Alipur Road, Delhi.
He further held that the food articles of which samples were taken had number been stored for sale.
The sealed samples were sent to the Public Analyst for examination and were found to be sub standard and, as such, adulterated articles of food within the purview of s. 2 i i .
In the case of ice cream there was 1.6 deficiency in total solids and 2.9 deficiency in fat.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. The companymon questions that arise for determination in these appeals on certificate directed against the judgments of the Delhi High Court are Whether for purposes of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for short, the Food Act 1052 there is numbersale of food which is provided by a hotelier to a guest when a companysolidated charge is made for room and the other amenities, including food, and when numberrebate is allowed for any meal which may number be taken by the guest ?
According to the prosecution case, on July 25, 1966, Shri P. P. Sinha, a Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, got from Respondent 1, the samples of ice cream, milk, curd and butter for the purpose of analysis.
In the result the Magistrate acquitted both the Respondents.
The Division Bench before which that appeal came up for 1053 hearing, referred three questions including the two set out above to a Full Bench for opinion.
A companymon stand taken by both the Respondents, was that numberarticles of food are sold in this Hotel to the number resident visitors, or the public generally, that the hoteliers provide residential accommodation, services and other amenities, including meals, only to the resident customers against a companyposite charge and that numberrebate is allowed for food if a resident customer chooses number to eat it.
