ABDUL SALAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the conviction and sentence pi the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tirupattur in G. C. No. 71 of 1956.

(2.) THE (acts are: The Sanitary Inspector of Vaniyambadi purchased from the shop of this accused a packet of tea dust and which on being sent to the public analysist was found to contain artificial colouring matter derived from coal tar, and which the public analyst considered constituted an infraction of Rule 37 (E) of the Madras prevention of Adulteration Rules, which prohibited the sale or possession for the purpose of sale a mixture of tea and any substance prepared in imitation or as the substitute for tea. The position taken by the accused was that he did not sell tea to the Sanitary inspector, that the tea was taken from his shop and that he did not know that any substance was added to the tea and that he has not committed any offence. The in Re: Abdul Salam vs. (25. 10. 1956 - MADHC) Page 2 of 3 (25. 10. 1956 - MADHC) Page 2 of 3 learned Magistrate convicted the accused as charged and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 10.

(3.) TWO points arc taken before me by the learned Advocate Mr. Raghavachari. First of all, he contends that this addition of coal tar derivative to the tea dust did not constitute a mixture of tea with any substance prepared in imitation or as a substitute for tea. I am unable to agree with the contention of the accused. What is sought to be hit at under this old Rule 37 (E) (b) was that there should be no adulteration of the pure tea offered for sale by the admixture of colouring substance derived from coal tar. Under Section 5 (1) (a) of Act III of 1918, adulteration is selling any food which is not of the nature, substance or quality of the article demanded by the purchaser. There can be no dispute therefore that the admixture of this coal tar derivative constituted an adulteration which is within the purview of Rule 37 (E) (b) of the old rules.