PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. NARAYANA SING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal of the accused in C. C. No. 449 of 1943 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Anantapur. He was charged under Rule 29 (b) of the Rules framed under the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act and Section 5 (1) (b) of the said Act read with Rule 27. The case against the accused was that he was selling milk adulterated with water on 28 March last. The Sanitary Inspector found him offering milk for sale. He purchased from him milk for two annas with a view to test it. He tested the milk and found that it was adulterated with water. He made samples of it and gave a declaration to the accused and sent a report. P.W. 1 the Sanitary Inspector proved the purchase by him for two annas of the milk which the accused was offering for sale. He took out of it three samples and sent one to the chemical analyst. The analyst's report showed that the sample milk sent to him contained 46 per cent. water. The Magistrate held that since the Sanitary Inspector took out the samples in his official capacity the accused could not be found guilty and he relied upon the decision of Horwill J., In re Kanakayya ( 42) 29 A.I.R. 1942 Mad. 609. The Magistrate has evidently not correctly understood that ruling. All that was stated there was that there must be proof that the accused sold the milk. In that particular case there was no proof of sale and the evidence disclosed that the Sanitary Inspector seized a part of the milk and sent it to the analyst. The accused could not be found guilty as there was no evidence of sale. In this case there is the evidence of the Sanitary Inspector that he purchased milk for two annas and that after purchasing the same he noticed that it was adulterated and then took out a sample and forwarded it to the authorities. The ruling has therefore no application to the facts of this case. It was pointed out even in that ruling that if the Sanitary Inspector had purchased it the accused would have been guilty of the offence. The fact that the purchaser in this case happened to be the Sanitary Inspector would not make it any the less a purchase. The order of acquittal is therefore set aside. There is no evidence to show that the accused had any previous conviction. The accused will have to be convicted for an offence punishable under Rule 29 (a). I therefore convict the accused under Rule 29 (a) and Section 5(1)(b) of the Act mentioned above read with Rule 27 of the rules framed under that Act and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 5 with simple imprisonment in default for one week.