Skip to content


The Public Prosecutor Vs. Panchakarla Sooramma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFood Adulteration
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad617; (1941)1MLJ716
AppellantThe Public Prosecutor
RespondentPanchakarla Sooramma
Excerpt:
- .....a seer of milk for sample. the milk was found to contain 14 per cent. of water and rule 27 of the rules framed under section 20 of the madras prevention of adulteration act provides that no person shall add any water to milk intended for sale or offer for sale milk to which any such addition has been made. rule 29 makes a breach of that rule punishable with fine and the purity of the milk is immaterial. the respondent would there fore be guilty under rules 27 and 29 and her acquittal on the ground that the milk was not otherwise adulterated is unsustainable. the. appeal is therefore allowed and the order of acquittal is set aside. the respondent is convicted under rules 27 and 29 framed under section 20 of the madras prevention of adulteration act and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 10,.....
Judgment:

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against the acquittal of respondent of an offence under Rules 27 and 29 framed under Section 20 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act.

2. The respondent, a golla woman, was selling milk near the Railway station and the Sanitary Inspector purchased half a seer of milk for sample. The milk was found to contain 14 per cent. of water and Rule 27 of the rules framed under Section 20 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act provides that no person shall add any water to milk intended for sale or offer for sale milk to which any such addition has been made. Rule 29 makes a breach of that rule punishable with fine and the purity of the milk is immaterial. The respondent would there fore be guilty under Rules 27 and 29 and her acquittal on the ground that the milk was not otherwise adulterated is unsustainable. The. appeal is therefore allowed and the order of acquittal is set aside. The respondent is convicted under Rules 27 and 29 framed under Section 20 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10, with simple imprisonment for one week in default.


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