ARUMUGHOM CHETTIAR Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions are filed by the same accused who has been convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Ernakulam of an offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) read with Section 7 (1) of the Prevention, of Food Adulteration Act - Act 37 of 1954.

(2.) PW. 1 the Sanitary Inspector of Mattancherry Municipality purchased from the accused 24 oz. , of buffalo milk on two dates 12. 9. 58 and 9. 3. 59 when the milk was being taken by the accused to the Madras Cafe for sale. On analysis the milk was found to be adulterated. In both the cases the accused contended that he was only a paid servant of Kuppuswamy Chettiar, his brother and examined witnesses to prove his case. The learned Magistrate disbelieved the defence evidence and found that the accused was a milk vendor and as such was guilty of the offence charged against him. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge also accepted the prosecution evidence and confirmed the conviction and sentence.

(3.) THE first point that is taken is that the purchase of milk by the Sanitary Inspector in the exercise of the statutory powers under Section 10 of the Act does not amount to a sale even though the price had been received by the accused. Reliance was placed On the decision in Food Inspector, Calicut v. Parameswaran Chettiar 1961 Ker LT 308 : 1962 (1) Cri. LJ 152. In that case the plea of the accused that he was delivering the milk that he had gat by milking the buffalo belonging to the proprietor of the coffee hotel and that he was not taking it to the hotel for the purpose of sale was accepted by the Sessions Judge, but the charge that he was called upon to answer was that he had sold one bottle of buffalo milk to the Sanitary Inspector and therefore the question for consideration was whether that transaction of sampling by itself even though the accused was not in possession of the milk for the purpose Of sale would amount to a sale. Raman Nayar, J. , held on the facts of that case that it would be only a case of seizure and compulsory acquisition of the milk in exercise of the powers conferred on the Sanitary Inspector by Section 10 of the Act and that it would not amount to a sale. But it has Been made clear in that decision that if it is proved that the accused was taking the milk to the coffee hotel for the purpose of sale his very possession of the milk would be Sale within the definition of Section 2 (xiii) of the Act and he would undoubtedly be guilty of the offence charged.