Skip to content


The Public Prosecutor Vs. Parameswara Iyer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFood Adulteration
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1947Mad428; (1947)2MLJ71
AppellantThe Public Prosecutor
RespondentParameswara Iyer
Cases ReferredCrown Prosecutor v. Ramanatha Aiyar
Excerpt:
- - ' if that decision had been in force, the acquittal awarded by the magistrate would be perfectly correct......framed under section 20 of the madras prevention of adulteration act provides that where in any hotel, sweetmeats of which ghee is commonly an ingredient are for sale and are prepared wholly or in part with a mixture with other articles contemplated in rule 28 or with any oil or fat other than ghee, it is imperative upon the person in charge of the hotel to exhibit in such hotel one or more notices specifying in the vernacular of the district that sweetmeats are not made of ghee. an infringement of this rule entails punishment under rule 29.3. it has been found as a fact that in the present case the 'jilebi' seized contained ghee with 20 per cent. of fat. the evidence of p. w. 2 shows that no notice was published in the manner prescribed by rule 28-b to the effect that the 'jilebi'.....
Judgment:

Yahya Ali, J.

1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondent in C.C. No. 1318 of 1946 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Periyakulam. The respondent was charged with having in his possession and having sold ' jilebi' which was adulterated with 20 per cent. of fat not derived from milk or cream.

2. Rule 28-B of the Rules framed under Section 20 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act provides that where in any hotel, sweetmeats of which ghee is commonly an ingredient are for sale and are prepared wholly or in part with a mixture with other articles contemplated in Rule 28 or with any oil or fat other than ghee, it is imperative upon the person in charge of the hotel to exhibit in such hotel one or more notices specifying in the vernacular of the district that sweetmeats are not made of ghee. An infringement of this rule entails punishment under Rule 29.

3. It has been found as a fact that in the present case the 'jilebi' seized contained ghee with 20 per cent. of fat. The evidence of P. W. 2 shows that no notice was published in the manner prescribed by Rule 28-B to the effect that the 'jilebi' was not prepared in ghee. The Sub-Magistrate acquitted the accused, acting upon the decision of this Court in Crown Prosecutor v. Ramanatha Aiyar : AIR1946Mad44 , where it was held that the ghee or oil or other fatty substance used for frying a sweetmeat is not an ingredient of sweetmeat. That was a case of ' jahangiri ' which is not materially different from 'jilebi.' If that decision had been in force, the acquittal awarded by the Magistrate would be perfectly correct. But to get over the effect of the decision of the Bench, the Provincial Government have altered the rule and have brought in an amendment which has been published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 15th January, 1946 (G.O. No. 3097, dated 30th November, 1945, Education and Public Health Department), whereby they have enacted that where a sweetmeat is fried or otherwise cooked in ghee, such ghee, for the purpose of Rule 28-B shall be deemed to be an ingredient of the sweetmeat. This notification came into force on 15th January, 1946. The offence, the subject-matter of this prosecution was on 25th February, 1946. In consequence of the amended rule, it must be held that an offence has been committed under Rule 28-B read with Rule 29.

4. The order of acquittal is set aside and the accused is convicted under the rules and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //