Skip to content


Public Prosecutor Vs. Lourduswamy - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal;Food Adulteration
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 84 of 1957
Judge
Reported inAIR1957Mad631; 1957CriLJ1148; (1957)2MLJ13
ActsPrevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 7
AppellantPublic Prosecutor
RespondentLourduswamy
Advocates:Public Prosecutor
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
- - therefore both the seller, the servant, as well as the person on whose behalf the milk was sold, viz......milk. the master pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 50. the servant, accused 2, was let off on the ground that section 7 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954, does not contemplate both the master and the servant to be prosecuted. section 7 is as follows:'no person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell ordistribute (1) any adulterated food..........'according to the interpretation put by the magistrate, if a person sells himself he can be prosecuted, or if he sells by any person, he can be prosecuted, but not the person through whom he sells. it is not a correct interpretation of the section. this section means that even though he may sell by another person, still the master is liable. but the.....
Judgment:

Somasundaram, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Tanjore, Two persons, i. e., the master and his servant, were prosecuted for selling adulterated buffalo's milk. The master pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The servant, accused 2, was let off on the ground that Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, does not contemplate both the master and the servant to be prosecuted. Section 7 is as follows:

'No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell ordistribute (1) any adulterated food..........'

According to the interpretation put by the Magistrate, if a person sells himself he can be prosecuted, or if he sells by any person, he can be prosecuted, but not the person through whom he sells. It is not a correct interpretation of the section. This section means that even though he may sell by another person, still the master is liable. But the fact of selling by the person still remains.

Since the seller in the case actually is the servant, he cannot escape prosecution. If it is proved that the second accused was selling only on behalf of the master the accused 1, then the master will also be liable. Therefore both the seller, the servant, as well as the person on whose behalf the milk was sold, viz., the master, are liable. The acquittal of the second accused, is therefore, set aside.

The second accused is convicted. In view of the fact that the master admits the adulteration find as the second accused was only a servant under the master, the first acoused, I think a fine of Rs. 5 will meet the ends of justice. The second accused is therefore convicted under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Pood Adulteration Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5 : in default to undergo three days rigorous imprisonment. The appeal is allowed.


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