Skip to content


The Public Prosecutor Vs. Kachi Mohideen Maraikayar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFood Adulteration
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1948Mad218; (1947)2MLJ456
AppellantThe Public Prosecutor
RespondentKachi Mohideen Maraikayar and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....under section 20(2) of the madras prevention of adulteration act, 1918. they admittedly kept for sale gingelly oil, which on analysis by the government analyst was found to contain 95 per cent, of groundnut oil. the oil was according to the defence being sold not as food but for lighting purposes. the entire attempt during the trial was to establish this but the learned public prosecutor contends that even as for lighting purposes no person is entitled to add groundnut oil to gingelly oil or to sell or offer or expose such a mixture. the prohibition contained in rule 27-a is against the addition of any groundnut oil or any other oil to gingelly oil intended for sale and against sale of any gingelly oil to which any such addition have been made. the rule does not make any reference to.....
Judgment:

Yaha Ali, J.

1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondents who are father and son, running a grocery shop at Rameswaram. They had been charged under Rules 27-A and 29 framed under Section 20(2) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1918. They admittedly kept for sale gingelly oil, which on analysis by the Government Analyst was found to contain 95 per cent, of groundnut oil. The oil was according to the defence being sold not as food but for lighting purposes. The entire attempt during the trial was to establish this but the learned Public Prosecutor contends that even as for lighting purposes no person is entitled to add groundnut oil to gingelly oil or to sell or offer or expose such a mixture. The prohibition contained in Rule 27-A is against the addition of any groundnut oil or any other oil to gingelly oil intended for sale and against sale of any gingelly oil to which any such addition have been made. The rule does not make any reference to the purpose of the addition or to the purpose for which it is sold. The prohibition is absolute for whatever purpose the consumer may take it or the seller may sell it. The policy of the law apparently is that even if it is sold for lighting purposes and not as food the consumer may use it for food and it would be too deleterious for his health. The only argument raised by the learned advocate for the respondents in defence is that the gingelly oil was not sold as food. Neither Rule 27-A nor Section 5 of the Act is confined to sale of the article as food. What is prohibited is sale of food when it is adulterated in the manner prohibited. Thus there is no doubt that both the respondents are guilty of having committed the offences under the Act. The order of acquittal passed by the Sub-Magistrate is reversed and both the respondents are convicted under Rules 27-A and 29 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act Rules and each is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15; in default to undergo one week's simple imprisonment.


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