R. SANKARAN Vs. CORPORATION OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted by the Sixth Presidency Magistrate, under Section 299 (1) (b) and Section 357 (1) of the Madras City Municipal Act and fined Rs. 10, in defaults simple imprisonment for 10 days. He has also been directed to pay licence fee of Rs. 15 and prosecution fee of Rs. 1.25, in default, simple imprisonment for two weeks. The complaint filed by the respondent, Corporation of Madras, by its Licence Inspector against the petitioner is for an offence under Section 287 read with Section 357 of the Madras City Municipal Act. But the article (Lactogen) stored by the appellant was not one of the articles mentioned in Schedule 6 of the Madras City Municipal Act, and the learned Sixth Presidency Magistrate, has rightly held that the Section 287 was inapplicable to the facts of this case. He, however, proceeded to convict the accused under Section 299 (1) (b), which provides that no person shall without or otherwise than in conformity with a licence from the Commissioner carry on or be employed in the trade or business of a dealer in or importer or seller or hawker of milk or dairy produce within the city.

(2.) THE short question for consideration in this petition is whether Lactogen stored by the petitioner is milk or dairy produce. Section 3 (9 -E) defines ' dairy produce ' as including milk, butter, butter -ghee, curd, butter -milk, cream, cheese, and any and every product of milk. It will be doing violence to language to call Lactogen a milk product or dairy produce. It may be that milk or product of milk is a constituent of Lactogen; but it could not be said that Lactogen which contains several other ingredients is a produce of milk or dairy produce. If the contention of the respondent is accepted, it would lead to the anomalous result that articles containing small quantity of milk or milk product such as sweets, toffee and other articles would be dairy produce. It is clear from the marginal note to Section 299 that the section is intended for the regulation of milk trade. Even having regard to the object of this section, it would not be proper to give such a wide and unrestricted interpretation to the words ' dairy produce ' as to include Lactogen. The conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained and they are set aside. The fine, if collected, will be refunded to the petitioner.