JUDGMENT R.L. Gulati, J. - This is an appeal by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra against the order dated 15th of April, 1966 by Smt. S. K. Dixit, the Juvenile Judge Agra acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 7116 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 11-8-1965 the respondent was found selling milk within the limits of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra which was suspected by the Food Inspector to be adulterated. The Food Inspector accordingly purchased a quantity of milk by way of sample after paying its price. The sample was divided into three equal parts and each part was put into a separate bottle to which was $ added the prescribed quantity of formalin as a preservative. The bottles were then properly sealed and labelled one of which was given to the accused and one was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst shows that the milk was deficient in non-fatty solid con-tents by about 30%. According to this report the milk was obviously adulterated. In due course the respondent was put up for trial. He has been acquitted by the learned Juvenile Judge on the finding that the milk which the respondent was alleged to have sold belonged not to him but to one Hari Sewak. According to the learned Judge Hari Sewak and not the respondent should have been prosecuted. 3. This view of the learned Juvenile Judge is clearly wrong. A plain reading of Sections 7 and 16 of the Act makes it clear that every person who sells adulterated food is guilty of an offence punishable under Section 16 and it does not matter that the adulterated food does not belong to him. In a case where an adulterated article of food is sold through a servant, the servant and the master both are guilty and so is the case with the sale through an agent. In such cases even the plea that the accused was ignorant of the nature of the substance or its quality is not available to him see Sarju Prasad v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1961 SC 631. The learned Juvenile Judge was, therefore, clearly in error in acquitting the respondent on this ground. 4. In such cases even the plea that the accused was ignorant of the nature of the substance or its quality is not available to him see Sarju Prasad v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1961 SC 631. The learned Juvenile Judge was, therefore, clearly in error in acquitting the respondent on this ground. 4. I would have disposed of this case my-self but it appears that the respondent is a juvenile whose age or other antecedents are no where to be found on the record. In the absence of these particulars, it would not be possible for this Court to determine the proper measure of punishment in case the respondent is adjudged guilty. Under these circumstances, I would prefer not to express any opinion on the merits of the case and would remand it. 5. The appeal is allowed; the order of Smt. S. K. Dixit, the Juvenile Judge, dated 15-4-1966 is accordingly set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Juvenile Judge for a fresh trial according to law.