VANKA BHIMARAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted under B. 39 for contravention of Rule 27-A of the Rules framed under Section 20 (2) (f), Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act; under the same Section 22 (2) (f), he was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100.

(2.) THE accused did not deny that the oil which was found in his possession contained 50 per cent, of gingelly oil and 50 per cent, of groundnut oil. The accused pleaded from the commencement that be kept that oil not for sale as food but for sale as lamp oil. The learned trial Magistrate apparently did not accept that defence. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on appeal held that even if that composition was kept by the accused for sale as lamp oil that was in contravention of Rule 27-A.

(3.) ASSUMING for the purposes of this case that the defence was true and the composition was kept by the accused for sale as lamp oil, The Public Prosecutor v. Kachi Mohideen Marakayar 1947-2 M. L. J. 456 : A. I. R. (35) 1948 Mad. 218, should really conclude the question at issue of the liability of the accused for punishment under E. 29. Yahya Ali J. observed: "the prohibition is absolute for whatever purpose the consumer may take it or the seller may sell it. " What B. 27-A states is "no person shall sell Cr have in his possession for the purpose of sale a mixture of gingelly oil with groundnut oil.