PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. YRAMACHANDRAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Public Prosecutor, Madras, appeals against the acquittal of the two respondents of an offence under Section 5(1)(b) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act for having contravened the provisions of Rule 27 of the Rules framed under Section 20 (a)(f) of the same Act. The first respondent is the Secretary of the Co-operative Milk Society, Bapatla, and the second respondent, a salesman in that society. The learned Public Prosecutor did not press the case as regards the first respondent and his acquittal has therefore to be confirmed. As regards the second respondent, the case is that on the 19 October, 1946, he sold milk containing 12 per cent. of water to P.W. 1, the sanitary inspector and passed a receipt Ex. P-2. What happened was that when the second respondent was delivering a quantity of milk to one Mr. Venkatasubbayya, the proprietor of Maruthi Vilas Coffee Hotel, Bapatla, P.W. 1., came there, took out a quantity and paid the cost of it to the second respondent. This milk, when analysed by the Government Analyst, was found to contain 12 per cent. of water and onthe strength of the Analyst's certificate, both the respondents were prosecuted. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Bapatla held that there was no sale of milk as contemplated by the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act and therefore acquitted both the respondents.

(2.) The reason on which the lower Court found the respondents not guilty was that the milk society was a composite body consisting of a number of members of which the proprietor of the Maruthi Vilas Coffee Hotel was one and when the society was delivering milk to one of its members, it was not a sale as contemplated by the Act but the transaction was one by which an undivided joint owner of the entire assets of the society was being given his share of the milk and as such, in law it could only be a distribution of the article among the members which would not amount to a sale. For this contention the learned Sub-Magistrate relied upon a decision of this Court in the Public Prosecutor V/s. Srinivasarao (1938) M.W.N. 317.

(3.) The lower Court has not correctly appreciated the above decision. Lakshmana Rao, J., did not in fact lay down that in the case of a society registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, there cannot be, in law, a sale at all but only a distribution of the articles among the members. The learned Judge definitely states that it is unnecessary to consider that question as on the facts themselves, the order of acquittal was right. The learned Judge was only stating in so many words the reason on which the lower appellate Court in that case rested its decision of acquittal. It cannot be said that the decision aforesaid is authority for the position that in all co-operative societies registered under the Madras Co- operative Societies Act, there can be no transaction of sale of an article, but only a distri-bution of the articles amongst the various members.