9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction of the firm without a charge. 2. Adulteration of mustard oil. 3. Adulteration of mustard seeds. 4. Sentencing of the accused considering his age. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction of the Firm Without a Charge: The primary contention was that the learned Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in convicting the firm in the absence of any charge against it. Admittedly, no charge was framed against the firm, only against Kishori Mohan. Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, states that both the person in charge and the company shall be deemed guilty of the offense. The firm, being a partnership firm, falls under the definition of a company. For a trial, charges must be framed to inform the accused of the allegations. Without a charge, there can be no trial. The court found that the conviction of the firm without a charge was improper and illegal, thus setting aside the conviction of the appellant No. 1, the firm. 2. Adulteration of Mustard Oil: The evidence showed that the mustard oil seized by the Food Inspector was adulterated. The defense argued that the sample was taken from tins not manufactured by the firm and were on a lorry sent by a purchaser. However, the Food Inspector's testimony indicated that the sample was taken from within the premises of the mill. The court found no evidence supporting the claim that the sample was from oil not manufactured by the firm. The defense witness also confirmed that the mustard oil seized was manufactured by the firm. Thus, the court upheld the conviction of Kishori Mohan under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Act for the adulteration of mustard oil. 3. Adulteration of Mustard Seeds: The defense claimed that the mustard seeds were stored for screening to avoid adulteration and were not meant for sale. However, the evidence, including the Food Inspector's testimony and the cash memo, showed that the seeds were stored and exposed for sale. The Analyst's report confirmed that the mustard seeds were adulterated with argemone seeds. The court found that the mustard seeds were indeed stored and exposed for sale at the firm's premises, thus justifying the conviction of Kishori Mohan for storing and exposing adulterated mustard seeds for sale. 4. Sentencing of the Accused Considering His Age: The accused, aged about 70 years at the time of the judgment, had been sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000. Considering his age and the lapse of time since the conviction, the court reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to the period already served but maintained the fine amount. In default of payment, the accused would suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year as ordered by the learned Magistrate. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal on merit but reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for the accused considering his age. The conviction of the firm was set aside due to the absence of a charge, while the conviction of Kishori Mohan for adulteration of mustard oil and mustard seeds was upheld. The order for the destruction of the seized articles was maintained.
|
