State by the Public Prosecutor vs Ponnuswamy

Somasundaram, J.—The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the Respondent in a prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Briefly the facts are as below: Thiru Nerrathilingam (P.W. 1), Food Inspector attached to the Srivilliputtur Municipality, purchased under under Ex. R. 3, 800 milli litres of milk from this Respondent at 9-30 a.m. on the 30th March 1968. He divided the milk into three parts, put them into there bottles, added in each bottle formalin and seat one to the Public Analyst duly sealed. On analysis the later found that the milk sent to his was deficient in solid-not fat to the extent of at least 7 per cent. This Respondent told P.W. 1 that the milk belonged to one Rathamani. Prosecution was launched against this Rathamani and this Respondent for offences u/s 16(1)(a)(i) and Section 7(1) read with Section 2(i)(1) of the Act.

When questioned in the court the Respondent admitted that seizure of the milk by P.W. 1 but denied the sale. Observing that there was no evidence as against Rathamani, who was said to be the owner of the milk, the learned Magistrate acquitted him. Holding that the prosecution has not ruled out the possibility of the deficiency setting in during the interval of 18 days taken by the Analyst for the examination he has given the benefit of doubt to the present Respondent and acquitted him.

The milk was seized on the 30th March, 1968 and the examination was done by the Analyst on the l9tb of April, 1969, after 18 days. Ex. P.4, the report issued by the Analyst, shows that the sample tested by him was preserved with formalin and that no change bad taken place in the Constitution of the article so as to interfere with the analysis, The fat content was 5 per cent and solids not fat 7-9 per cent. Clause A-11, 01-01 in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1965 reads that the sample should have at least 8.5 par cent solid not fat. Thus there was deficiency in solids which are not fat. This report remains unchallenged. The addition of formalin on a preservative in prescribed quantities will prevent changes or alterations in the milk seized due to natural causes. The Public Analyst in this case has given the report to the effect that no change had taken place in the Constitution of the article that would interfere with the analysis. The decision in In Re: Ayyavoo Accused, is to the point.

The acquittal is set aside and the Respondent is convicted u/s 16(1)(a)(i) and Section 7(1) read with Section 2(i)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The deficiency was not much. He is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks.

The appeal is allowed.