PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. KODALI ARJUNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Crown from the acquittal of the respondents in C.C. No. 27 of 1946 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gudivada. The case was first tried by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Gudivada and he subsequently forwarded it under Section 349(1), Criminal Procedure Code, to the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate, Gudivada, for disposal as he was of the opinion that since the second respondent was a child within the meaning of the Madras Children Act, his case called for a different punishment from that which he was empowered to inflict. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate on a review of the evidence came to the conclusion that no case had been made out against either of the respondents and he accordingly acquitted both of them.

(2.) The charge sheet in the case was filed by the executive authority of the Gudivada Municipality and the respondents were alleged to have committed offences under Rules 27 and 29 of the rules framed under Section 20 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act and also under Section 109 read with Section 138 of the Public Health Act. They were stated to have been responsible for the adulteration of milk and for the sale of the adulterated milk and in the charge sheet it was further alleged that the first accused being the owner who offered for sale adulterated milk and the second accused being in possession of adulterated milk for sale were both liable for conviction. The milk was seized while it was being delivered by the second accused at the coffee hotel of P.W. 1 by the Municipal Sanitary Inspector P.W. 2 who after complying with the provisions of the Act took samples and sent them to the Government Analyst. The Government Analyst was of opinion that the milk seized from the second accused contained 51 per cent, of added water. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on a careful scrutiny of the evidence came to the conclusion that the first accused was not proved to have had anything to do with the milk or the transaction in it and as regards the second accused he was of the opinion that it was not proved by the prosecution that he was-1 offering any milk for sale. He found that there was not the slightest indication that he added water to the milk that was tested or that he even knew of the addition of water to the milk by the person who handed over the milk vessel. The case of the first accused was that he had nothing to do with the milk and that the second accused was not his servant at all. The second accused pleaded in his statement that he was employed under one Somayya thereby meaning that he was not the employee of the first accused. He stated that when he was going to Gudivada taking his master's milk to be supplied to their regular constituents he was asked on the way by the first accused's wife to take some milk and give it in P.W. I S hotel and that he complied with that request. The milk that was seized from him by P.W. 2 was not his master Somayya's milk but the milk that was given to him on the way by the wife of the first accused.

(3.) Upon the facts there is little doubt that adulterated milk was recovered from the 2nd respondent but it is equally clear from the evidence that the 2nd respondent was not having the milk in his possession for sale nor was the milk proved to have been adulterated by him. Further it has not been proved that the first accused who was not the master of the second accused had any knowledge whatever of the transaction. I am therefore in entire agreement with the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Since however some legal contentions have been raised by the learned Public Prosecutor it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions.