CORPORATION OF MADRAS Vs. ARUMUGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the acquittal of the respondent, Arumugham by the third Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, for an offence punishable under Ss. 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act r/w Rules 44 (c) and 46 of the Rules framed thereunder. The Food Inspector of the Corporation of Madras, P. W. 1 purchased from the respondent on 21-9-1962 a sample of ghee exhibited for sale which, when analysed by the Public Analyst, was found adulterated with 13% of foreign fat.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that after P. W. 1 purchase the sample of the ghee, he had conformed to the formalities in the matter of dividing the sample and sending 1/3rd thereof to the Public Analyst. The result of the analysis disclosed 87 per cent genuine ghee, 13 per cent foreign fat (not derived from milk or cream) and a reichert value of 22. 5 per cent, so that the Analyst certified that the sample was adulterated with 13 per cent extraneous fat and this opinion was based on item a. 11. 14 of Appendix B of the Rules which prescribes the minimum Reichert value of genuine ghee for the State of Madras to be 26.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate found that the prosecution had not established any extraneous fat or added matter not exclusively derived from milk in the sample purchased from the respondent, and, therefore, there was no violation of Rule 44 (c) or 46 though, according to him, regard being had to the definition in S. 2 (i) (1)of the Act, a violation of item A. 11. 14 would amount to an offence. He further observed that S. 16 of the Act deals not only with violations of offences in the Act but also the Rules and there can be no two opinions that the respondent would be liable for offences punishable under S. 7 r/w 16 of the Act if the other conditions prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are satisfied.