PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. KUPANDRA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under Section 417 of the Criminal P. C. the Public Prosecutor, Madras, appeals against the acquittal of the respondent of an offence under Rule 28 framed under Clause (b), Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Madras Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and under Section 5(1)(d) of the said Act.

(2.) The prosecution case is that P.W. 1, the Health Inspector at Kallakurichi, went to the shop where the respondent was at about 8 a.m., on 15 October, 1946, and wanted a sample of ghee from him. The respondent gave the ghee and received 5 annas being the price. This ghee was tested and found to contain 94 per cent. of fat not derived from milk or cream and thereafter the prosecution was instituted. The defence of the respondent was that he was not, the owner of the shop where the ghee was offered for sale, that he did not sell the ghee and therefore he was not guilty of any offence. The lower Court found that the shop wherein the ghee was exposed for sale and sold, belonged to a joint family of the respondent and his brother, M.S. Palanisami Chetti and that the owner of the shop was this Palani-sami Chetti. The respondent was in the shop only in the absence of his brother, and relying upon a decision in In re Bellamkonda Kanakayya1, the lower Court held that the respondent was not guilty. In addition, the finding was that P.W. 1 was not acting under Section 14 of the Act but simply purchased the ghee as an ordinary individual and since there was no sale as contemplated by Section 5 the respondent was held not guilty.

(3.) In my view the learned Magistrate has not correctly appreciated the evidence in the case. There is no reason to doubt the credibility of the evidence of P.W.1, nor is anything suggested to that effect. P.W. 1 says that the respondent was in the shop when P.W. 1 asked him whether he had ghee; and on getting the reply in the affirmative, P.W. 1 purchased ghee for 5 annas for which a cash bill was given by the respondent. After the ghee was purchased and the money was paid, P.W. 1 told the respondent that he wanted the same for taking a sample. Though it is stated by P.W. I that the respondent told him that it was tiffin ghee, I do not think that anything can be made out of that. There is no such material as tiffin ghee contemplated by the Madras Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.