JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---In Criminal case No. 2225 of 1975 tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class of Nanded, four persons were prosecuted for an offence punishable under sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with section 7(v) and Rule 44-A of the same Act. The prosecution was for selling a commodity known as Lakh Dal, the sale of which is totally prohibited under the provisions of the Act. On 21st of March, 1974 at about 5.00 p.m. the Food Inspector of Nanded, one Ashokkumar Shivkaram Hurgat, purchased 750 grams of Lakh Dal from the premises said to be in the possession of Messrs Gopal Dal Mill. The said purchase was made from accused No. 1 who was, as the evidence has now shown, one of the several employees present in the said Mill. The evidence does not disclose, nor does the Food Inspector himself allege, that any of the owners of the Mills was present when the statutory purchase was made by him. 2. The learned trial Magistrate accepted the defence on behalf of the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 that the place from where the purchase was made was not owned by Messrs Gopal Dal Mill and that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were not the partners of the said firm. Accused No. 1, however, was convicted by the learned trial Magistrate on the ground that he had sold the commodity and was liable under the provision of section 7 of the Act. He convicted accused No. 1 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 300. In default of the payment of fine three months rigorous imprisonment was also imposed. He proceeded to acquit accused Nos. 2 to 4. This he did by his judgment and order dated 3rd of April, 1976. The order of conviction was challenged by accused No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1976 which was heard and allowed by the learned Sessions Judge of Nanded by his judgment and order dated 3rd of June, 1976. While so allowing the appeal the learned Sessions Judge found that accused No. 1 who was only one of the several servants present in the Mills premises could not be said to have sold the commodity to the Food Inspector. While so allowing the appeal the learned Sessions Judge found that accused No. 1 who was only one of the several servants present in the Mills premises could not be said to have sold the commodity to the Food Inspector. The sale was not made for or on behalf of himself or for or on behalf of the owners of the Mill with the knowledge that the sale was so made. The learned Sessions Judge also held that the prosecution case that accused No. 1 was the Munim of the partnership firm was not proved. Against the order of acquittal passed in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1976 the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 263 of 1978. Against the order of acquittal passed by the trial Magistrate himself in so far as accused Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 1978 has been preferred. The letter appeal was filed in the year 1976, but was taken up for admission in the year 1978. 3. Mr. Kamat, the learned Public Prosecutor, has urged that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge was incorrect inasmuch as absolute liability attaches to a person who makes a sale under section 17 of the Act. He relied upon the finding of trial Court wherein it has been mentioned that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were not the owners of the firm in question where the sale was made. If this finding was accepted, as it was accepted by the learned Magistrate, then the liability of accused No. 1 becomes inevitable. I am reluctant to accept this contention for the simple reason, as given by the learned Sessions Judge, that accused No. 1 did not make the sale on behalf of himself or on behalf of the owners for whom he was working along with several other servants. The complainant Food Inspector walked into the premises, Lakh Dal was lying in the premises, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him the Food Inspector seems to have proceeded to purchase the commodity, but he did it from the wrong person. Merely because a servant or any other person who is not concerned with the business is present on the premises and makes a sale, which he is not authorised to do, it cannot be said that he has made a sale under the provisions of the Act. Merely because a servant or any other person who is not concerned with the business is present on the premises and makes a sale, which he is not authorised to do, it cannot be said that he has made a sale under the provisions of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of this case it is clear that accused No. 1 was one of the several servants. It has not been shown that he was in charge of the business or that he had been otherwise authorised to sell the commodity. The order acquittal of accused No. 1 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, must be upheld. 4. The appeal against the order of acquittal in so far as accused Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned also deserves to be dismissed for the simple reason that the Food Inspector in the instant case has carried out the investigation so perfunctorily in utter disregard of the duty cast upon him. No attempt was made by him to collect proper material for the purpose of finding out as to who were the owners of the Mill on the day on which the sale was made. If the prosecution against accused Nos. 2 and 4 has failed in this case, it is entirely because of the negligence and carelessness of the complainant Food Inspector. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----