Public Prosecutor vs B. Nagamma

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.—The respondent was the accused in C. C. No. 890 of 1947 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate,

Jammalmadugu, a case u/s 5(1)(d), Madras Food Adulteration Act, for sale of milk adulterated with water to an extent of 57 per cent. The Sub-

Magistrate convicted the respondent and fined her Rs. 150. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jammalmadugu, on appeal, held that the prosecution

had not been instituted by the ""local executive officer"" but by the executive officer, Jammalmadugu Panchayat Board, and acquitted her. The

Government have filed an appeal against the acquittal.

The learned Public Prosecutor urged that, u/s 16 , Public Health Act, a District Health Officer must be deemed to be the local executive officer,

and, u/s 3 of Madras Act III [3] of 1918 (the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act), the District Health Officer, as local executive officer, can

delegate his powers and duties under the Act (including his powers u/s 18) to such persona as might be prescribed, and had delegated his powers

u/s 18 to the Executive Officer, Jammalmadugu Panchayat Board, who had initiated the prosecution. I agree. Govinda Menon J. has also, in his

judgment dated 30th October 1947, in C. A. No. 341 of 1947, come to the very same conclusion, and has upset an acquittal, on identical facts. I

set aside the acquittal of the respondent. There is no need to order a retrial as the facts are clear, and the milk was more than half water. But in

view of the fact that the learned counsel appearing for Government have not raised the point before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and relied on

the judgment of Govinda Menon J. (which was unfortunately not reported and so did not act as a deterrent to such pleas), I let the respondent off

with a fine of five rupees, or five days simple imprisonment in default, while convicting her u/s 5(1)(d) of the Act.