YENDRAPRAGADA RAMULU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition was referred to a Bench by Satyanarayana Raju, J., on the ground that the question raised is of some importance.. The facts are simple. On 30th March, 1954, the Municipal Sanitary Inspector, Guntur, purchased 16 coffee tablets from the accused and sent a sample to the Chemical Analyst, Madras, for analysis. The Chemical Analyse, in his report, stated that the sample contained not more than 45 per cent of coffee and at least 55 per cent, of foreign adulterant. Thereafter, the Muncipal Health Officer, Guntur, filed a charge-sheet against the accused under rule 37-A read with rule 38 of the rules framed under section 20 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that, on 30th March, 1954, the accused sold a mixture of coffee powder adulterated with 50 per cent of foreign adulterant as Mohini tablets, The accused not only denied the commission of the offence but also pleaded that he did not commit the offence as he satisfied the conditions laid down in section 6(2) of the Act. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate held, on the evidence, that the accused sold Mohini tablets as coffee-powder with 60 per cent, of foreign adulterant. He did not accept the plea of the accused that he complied with the provisions of section 6 (2) of the Act and, therefore, he was not liable for the offence. In the result, he convicted him under rule 37-A of the rules framed under section 20 of the Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50 with one month's imprisonment, under rule 38 of the said rules. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Guntur. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected the plea of the accused that he complied with the conditions laid down in section 6 (2) (a) (iii) of the Act on the ground that the said exemption applied only to offence under section 5 of ; the Act, whereas the accused was convicted for an offence under rule 37-A read with rule 38 of the rules framed under section 20 of the Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not accept his other contentions also. Hence, (he revision. Learned counsel for the accused contends that, when the accused is alleged to have committed an offence which directly falls under section 5(1) (a) of the Act, he cannot be prosecuted for the same offence under the rules made under the Act so as to deprive him of his defence under section 6 (2) of the Act and that any rule framed under the Act covering the same offence but ignoring the exemption is invalid.

(2.) To appreciate this argument, some of the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder may be read :-

(3.) In the present case, the case of the prosecution is that the Sanitary Inspector, Guntur, asked the accused to sell coffee-tablets to him whereas the accused sold him tablets containing 55 per cent, of foreign adulterant. If the prosecution case "be true, the vendor sold the purchaser tablets of a quality inferior to that demanded by him and, therefore, the accused committed an offence under section 5 (1) (a) of the Act. If so, the facts alleged directly fall under the provisions of section 5 (1) (a) of the Act and the accused has all the defences open to him under sections 5 and 6 and of the Act.