CROWN PROSECUTOR Vs. PRGANAPATHY IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these cases the local Government appeals against an order of acquittal in Calendar Cases Nos. 15569 and 15570 of 1914 on the file of the Presidency Magistrate. In both eases the charge against the accused was that they had exposed for sale aerated waters unwholesome and unfit for human consumption contrary to by-law 169 framed under Section 409(19) of the Madras City Municipal Act (III of 1904), an offence punishable under by-law 177.

(2.) By Section 409, Clause (19) of the Act, the Corporation is authorized to make by-laws to provide for the prevention of the sale or exposure for sale of unwholesome meat, fish-or provisions and securing the efficient inspection and sanitary regulation of shops in which articles intended for human food or drags are kept or sold. The by law in question (No. 169) has evidently been framed with reference to the first part of Clause (19), as the second part of that Clause relates to inspection and the sanitary regulation of shops.

(3.) The by-law is as follows: "No person shall expose for sale or keep for the purposes of sale any article intended for human food which is unwholesome or unfit for human consumption," The decision of the cases before us turns on the question whether word "food" in the by-law includes drink or not. The Magistrate has held that it does not. The learned Crown Prosecutor contends that the word "food" does include "drink" and in support of his contention refers to the definition of "food" given in the Standard and Century Dictionaries, in the English Sale of Food and Drugs Acts and in Section 251 of the Bengal District Municipalities Act (III of 1884). Admittedly the word "food" in ordinary parlance would not include "drink" and there is nothing in the dictionaries referred to which would support a contrary view. It is argued, however, that in law the word "food" does include, every article used for food or drink by man, other than drugs or water. This, no doubt, is the definition of the term "food" in the English Sale of Food and Drugs Acts (See Halsbury, Volume 15, page 5); but it is evident that that definition was made for the purposes of those Acts and it is so stated in the passage in Halsbury which is above referred to. Similarly with regard to Section 251 of the Bengal District Municipalities Act. By that section "food" is defined to include every article used by man for food or drink, except drugs or water. But there again, the definition was introduced into the Act by an amendment in 1886, and has special reference to that Act alone. The fact that it was found necessary to introduce the definition by subsequent amendment of the Act is, of course, a point against who contention of the learned Crown Prosecutor. It is also pointed out by the learned vakil for the accused that the Madras City Municipal Act can hardly be construed by reference to a mufassal Act of Bengal.