State by Public Prosecutor vs K.M. Krishnan

K.N. Mudaliar, J

This is an appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal of the accused-respondent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Erode, for an

offence under S. 16(1)(a)(i) read with S. 7(1) and 2(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 44 (e) of the rules made

thereunder. Briefly the facts are:

On 15th November 1967 at 12-30 p.m. the accused-respondent was having in his Mailgal shop at door No. 59 Main Road, Kavandapadi, 6

measures of cocoanut oil in a tin for the purpose of sale. The Food Inspector, P.W. 1, purchased 375 m.l. of the said oil for sampling purposes on

payment of Rs. 2,25 and on analysis it was certified as containing 75 per cent of ground-nut oil.

The plea of the accused under S. 342 Crl. P.C. is one of denial of the offence. He contended that the oil in question was kept by him for his

personal use and not for sale. He examined D.W. 1. He speaks to P.W. 1 demanding cocoanut oil for which the accused-respondent replied that

he had no cocoanut oil and that he was having only in a tin to be used in the boiler for preparation of brown sugar. According to D.W. 1, the Food

Inspector, P.W. 1 took sample oil from that tin and prepared records.

According to the evidence of P.W. 1, the accused-respondent was having 6 measures of cocoanut oil for sale in his maligal shop and he

purchased 375 m.l. of the oil on payment of Rs. 2.25 and on analysis it was certified to be containing 75 per cent of ground-nut oil. The plea of

defence is that the oil was not intended for sale and it was kept for using in the boiler for preparation of brown sugar, according to the evidence of

D.W. 1.

The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Erode found that the prosecution has not established that the oil question was kept there for sale and for

human consumption and therefore the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate solely relied on the

proposition of laid down in In re Manickan Chetttiar 1966 L. W. Crl. 22.

In view of the position of law enunciated in Crl. A. No. 172 of 1968, State by Public Prosecutor v. K. Rangaraju, 1971 L. W. Cri. 85, I hold

that the sale of cocoanut oil would fall within the ambit of S. 2(XIII) of the Act. There is no doubt that Ex. P-4, the report of the Public Analyst

proves that the sample contained about 75 per cent of ground-nut oil and that the sample cocoanut oil was adulterated. I hold that the accused-

respondent is guilty of the offence with which he has been charged. The order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Erode, acquitting the

accused-respondent is set aside. I convict him and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 100; In default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two

months. The appeal filed by the state is allowed. Time for payment of the fine-one month.