MEENAKSHI ACHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner is the proprietor of an ice-cream company at Madurai. THE second petitioner is her Manager and the third petitioner is a vendor employed in this concern. P. W. 1 the Food Inspector, attached to the Madurai municipality, purchased on 16-7-1969 fifteen cups of ice-cream from the third petitioner in the presence of the second petitioner for Rs. 7. 50 as per receipt ex. P. 1. He divided the ice-cream into three parts and packed them in three different bottles. He added 24 drops of formalin in each bottle handed over one to the vendor, retained one with him and then sent the third to the Public analyst. On analysis the latter found that the sample analysed contained only 1. 9 per cent of fat as against 10 per cent prescribed under the Rules and that it did not contain any fruit or nut. Complaint was then filed against these three petitioners for an offence under Section 2 (1) (b) read with Section 7 (1)and Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with clause A-11, 02. 08 in Appendix-B to Rule 5 of the Food Adulteration Rules. P. W. 1 deposed to his purchasing the ice-cream from the third petitioner in the presence of the second petitioner on that day. P. W. 2 corroborated him. THE analyst as P. W. 3 marked the report Ex. P. 8 issued. When questioned, the first petitioner stated that she is at Coimbatore and that her husband alone is looking after the business at Madurai. THE second petitioner admitted that he is employed in the Company, but stated that he hi not the Manager. THE learned district Magistrate who tried them admonished the 3rd petitioner, and convicted and sentenced the first petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and the second petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -. THE learned Sessions Judge, Madurai who dealt with the matter in appeal has confirmed it. THE petitioners contend that they have wrongly convicted.

(2.) P. W. 3 is the Government Analyst at the King Institute guindy. The sample sent by P. W. 1 was analysed by one Nataraja Sharma, Public analyst, on 19-6-1969. Ex. P. 8 is his report, P. W. 3 has sworn that this analysis was done under his supervision. Ex. P. 8 report shows that the ice-cream (pineapple) examined contained by estimation, 1. 9 per cent of fat and that it was deficient to the extent of 80 per cent and that it did not contain any fruit or nut. Rule A. 11. 02. 08 states that this class of ice-cream should contain not less than 10 per cent protein and 36 per cent milk fat. 3. 5 per cent protein and 36 per cent total solids, except that when it contain fruit or nuts or both the content of milk fat may be proportionately reduced, but shall not be less than 8 per cent by weight. There can be no doubt that the sample analysed did not conform to the standards prescribed by this rule. There was deficiency of fat.