The Public Prosecutor vs Parthasarathy Ayyangar and Another

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.—This is an appeal by the State of Madras against the acquittal of the two accused, Parthasarathy Ayyangar and

Karuppa Konar, in Criminal Case No. 2195 of 1953 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli.

The facts are briefly these. These two accused were charge-sheeted under Rule 37(A)(a) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, for

having added a substance other than chicory to coffee intended for sale in their shop. The first accused was the proprietor of the shop, and the

second accused was a servant under him, aiding in sale of the jars containing coffee powder. On an analysis it was found that the jars contained

seventy-five per cent coffee and twenty-five per cent foreign adulterant which was not chicory and which was identified as wild roasted date seeds.

The correctness of the analysis was not disputed by the accused. What they said was that they were selling these jars of coffee powder obtained

from Kumar Coffee Works, and that they believed the assurance of the Company that the jars contained seventy-five per cent coffee and twenty-

five per cent chicory, which is permissible under the rules, and that they had no reason to believe that the Kumar Coffee Works had mixed a

foreign adulterant other than chicory, like powdered wild date seeds. They also relied on exhibit D-2, dated 5th September 1953, a

communication by them to the Health Officer stating these facts, and on a communication, exhibit D-1, dated 5th June 1953, from one

Padmakumar, the proprietor of the Kumar Coffee Works. The learned Public Prosecutor rightly pointed out that the Prevention of Adulteration

Act and rules framed thereunder are intended to protect the purchasers of coffee powder and other food from adulteration, and that u/s 6(2) of the

Prevention of Adulteration Act, certain conditions have to be fulfilled before an accused could rely on a defence that he had no reason to believe at

the time, when he sold the food, that it was not of such nature, substance or quality as described in the jars, and that in all such cases therefore it

would be no defence to say merely that the vendor was ignorant of the thing, substance or quality. Here, the jars sold by the accused were clearly

labelled as containing seventy-five per cent coffee and twenty-five per cent chicory and the accused failed to show that the jars supplied to them by

Kumar and Company contained seventy-five per cent coffee and twenty-five per cent foreign adulterant, namely, powdered wild date seeds. We

are not concerned here with the question whether powdered wild date seeds are inferior to chicory. The law had laid down that chicory and no

other substance shall be mixed with coffee, and, so the admixture of any other substance, like powdered wild date seeds, will be an offence. The

lower Court has overlooked the provisions of Section 6(2) and has therefore not applied Rule 37(A)(a) to this case. I set aside the acquittal of

both the accused, and convict them of an offence under Rule 37(A)(a). After taking all the circumstances into consideration, including the plea of

Mr. Srinivasagopalan for a light sentence, I direct each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 5 or, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for

seven days.