S MOSES Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two cases have been directed to be posted before this Bench by the honourable the Chief Justice on a reference by Somasundaram J. , as to whether a servant selling goods on behalf of his master will fall primarily and directly within the scope of the penal provisions of Sections 7 and 16 of Act 37 of 1954, the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, as Somasundaram J. , who had been prima facie, of the view that the servant wilt also be absolutely liable primarily and directly for the sale of adulterated food on behalf of the master in two cases decided by him, sitting singly, (Criminal Appeal Nos. 84 and 138 of 1957), both ex parte felt some doubt about the correctness of his view regarding the law, and wanted it to be clarified and settled by a Bench.

(2.) THE facts in these two cases are briefly these: There is a Society called the government Servants' Co-operative Society, Mettur Township, Salem District. The first accused, Moses, was the manager of the Co-operative Society, while the second accused Rangaswami, was the sales clerk in charge of the grocery section. P. W. 1 was a member of the Society, and was also the Food Inspector of Mettur township. He got information that the Bengal gram powder sold by the Society, though considered by the public to be the best Bengal gram powder available in the market, was adulterated with a brand of coal tar dye, not permitted under the Act. So, on 18-6-1957, P. W. 1 purchased 1 1/2 pounds of Bengal gram powder from the second accused, the sales clerk in charge of the grocery section for 29 n. p. He observed the usual formalities prescribed when purchasing a food stuff for the purpose of testing. The Bengal gram powder was sent to the public analyst. The public analyst found that the Bengal gram powder contained an artificial water soluble yellow colouring matter derived from coal tar and gave it as his opinion that the sample was adulterated.

(3.) THERE was no contention before the court (the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, sankari, who tried the case) that the Bengal gram powder in question was not adulterated. The only defence, on the facts was that the adulteration was not prejudicial to health and would not injure anybody, but only added colour to the substance and made it attractive to the buyer. That, of course, was an untenable plea. It is well settled that under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the adulterated substance need not be poisonous or injurious. Indeed, it may even be conducive to health. The object of the Act is to see that the sub-stance sold is not mixed with any other thing not permitted by law. Thus, if ghee is adulterated with lard of pig or with beef suet, it may be that from the purely physical health point of view the mixture may bo more nutritious. But the offence is complete, because a substance not recognised by law has been used for mixing. So the plea will fail like a plea that the adulterer is a healthier man than the husband, in a charge for adultery.