Chand And Ors. vs State on 24 May, 1985
Therefore, the master or the principal would be liable for the acts of his servant committed by him in the course of his. ordinary duties and when a servant sells any commodity or any article of food stocked for sale by the master of the establishment, the master will be deemed to have authorised the sale of such article by the servant and if it turns out that the article is adulterated within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Act, the master will also be liable under Section 16 although he was. not present at the time of the actual sale by the servant. (See in this connection Budhmal v. State, Ramanlal Chimanlal Shah and another v. The State of Gujarat and another. (1967) 2nd Gujarat 189). The principle under-lying the vicarious liability of the master is that at a servant in charge of the business or in charge of the establishment of his employer at the relevant time sells an article and if the facts establish that the selling of the article was included in one of his normal duties as an employee, then the sale by him would be on behalf of his employer. In such a situation the implied authority of the master for the sale would be well warranted.