Public Prosecutor vs Narayana Ayyar

Lakshmana Rao, J.—The respondent is an hotel-keeper and the ghee stored by him for service to his customers with their meal was found to be adulterated. The price of the ghee is necessarily included in the price of the meal, and ghee, as defined in Section 2, Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act (Act 3 of 1918), means ghee prepared exclusively from butter made from cows, or buffaloes'' milk or cream or both. The article stored was not therefore what it purported to be, and the respondent would be guilty of the offence of storing for sale adulterated ghee u/s 5(1)(b) and Rule 28 framed u/s 20(2) of the Act. The ignorance of the respondent of the nature or quality of the article is no defence to a prosecution u/s 5 (1)(b) of the Act and his acquittal on the ground "that it cannot be said that the ghee is sold to the customers" is untenable. The order of acquittal is therefore set aside and the respondent is convicted u/s 5(1)(b), Prevention of Adulteration Act, and Rule 28 framed u/s 20, Clause (2) of the Act. He is sentenced to pay off fine of Rs. 5 and in default to simple imprisonment for two weeks.