RATHAMANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner has been convicted under Section 2 (1) (a) and (1) and Section 7 (1) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 12 months and to a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Madurai.

(2.) THE point which is stressed in this revision by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri Kumaramangalam, is a very interesting one. As the lower appellate court itself remarks, the fact that a sample of the adulterated milk was purchased by the inspector, P. W. 1, is not in dispute. As far as the analysis of the milk is concerned, we have the report of the Public Analyst to the effect that the sample contained 8. 8 per cent of solids not fat, whereas the proper percentage for the relevant freezing point, with regard to a mixture of genuine cow-milk and buffalo milk must be 9. 4 per cent. Hence as far as the scientific standard of purity prescribed in the rules is concerned this is an adulterated sample. If it was intended for sale or was being taken for sale, the revision petitioner would certainly be liable to be convicted as found by the courts below.

(3.) BUT there is considerable difficulty in holding that the revision petitioner was carrying this mixture of cow and buffalo milk for the purpose of sale, when the sample was seized by the Food inspector, P. W. 1. There is some evidence that the revision petitioner is a milk vendor, by profession. But that evidence, which is really the evidence of P. W. 2 is very indefinite. In Chief-examination P. W. 2 states "that the accused is a vendor of milk". In cross-examination he concedes that the accused was vending milk till about two years previously, and that for the last two years the accused has been doing business "in tin curd". Now, this is of some importance, in the context of the defence of the accused that this milk was being taken by him, not for being sold as milk, but in order to manufacture "tin curd" in the course of the business in which the accused was engaged. That claim of the accused is corroborated by his statement, Ex. P. 3, which is a contemporaneous statement made by the accused to the Food Inspector, P. W. 1. As confirmed by P. Ws. 2 and 3 in further cross-examination, the accused has explicitly stated in that document that he was taking the milk in question to Madurai "for purposes of curd". The learned Sessions Judge was much exercised by the particular place at which this interlineations has been made in the statement. I am unable to see how it is at all relevant. Whether the interlineations is in the proper place or not, the accused has affirmed in his earlier statement, Ex. P. 3, itself that this milk was being taken by him, not for being sold as milk but "for purposes of curd". The learned Additional First Class Magistrate who tried this accused, thought that it was unlikely that the accused, a resident of Tirumangalam, would be taking three tin cans of milk at 6 a. m. through West Veli Street of Madurai, about ten miles away, if the object was not to sell this milk but to prepare "tin curd from it".