Judgment: — This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondent (accused 1) by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Devakottai of an offence under section 7 read with section 16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The respondent is the Kallur Rayavaram Co-operative Milk Supply Society, Ltd., Kallur Rayavaram. Accused 2 was the Secretary of the Society and accused 3 was the carrier of milk for the Society. Accused 1 and 2 were acquitted, and accused 3 was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25. The appeal is preferred against the acquittal of accused I alone.

The Food Inspector of Karaikudi Municipality stopped accused 3 at about 10 A.M. on 14th September, 1962, who was carrying a tin can, and enquired him. He stated that he had cow’s milk belonging to Kallur Rayavaram Milk Supply Co-operative Society and that he was taking it for delivery to the Karaikudi Cooperative Society for sale. The milk can was locked. P.W. 1, the Food Inspector, sent word to the Karaikudi Co-operative Society for the key through the maistry and the key of the can was brought. The can was opened by accused 3. P.W. 1 purchased ¾ litre of milk from accused. 3. The necessary receipts were prepared. P.W. 1 added formalin to the milk as preservative. One bottle was sent on the same day with a letter to the Public Analyst, Guindy, for analysis. The Analyst examined the milk on 5th October, 1962 and gave a certificate Exhibit P-4. The result of the analysis was as follows:

“Fat ..4 7%

Solids-not-fat ..8 6%

Freezing point (Hortvet) 0.495°C .. Whereas genuine cow milk has

a freezing point of 0.535°C.”

The certificate stated that the Analyst was of opinion that the sample contained 7 per cent of added water as calculated from the freezing point. He also certified that no change had taken place in the constitution of the article that would interfere with the analysis.

The learned Magistrate accepted the case for the prosecution and found that accused 3 was having the milk for sale and was therefore guilty of an offence under sections 7 and 16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25. He found that accused 2, who was the Secretary of the Society was not liable, as the addition of water appeared to have taken place without his knowledge. He also acquitted accused 1, the Society.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that under section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act when an offence is committed under the Act by a company, persons who are responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence, and, therefore, contended that the acquittal of accused 1 was erroneous in law. Mr. G. Gopalaswami, the learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that section 17 (1) of the Act should be construed to mean that only when persons responsible for the conduct of the business of the company are found guilty, the company can be punished and not otherwise. He also submitted that on the evidence of the Analyst it cannot be safely found that the milk was adulterated with added water.

Section 17 (1) of the Act deems the person responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, to be guilty of the offence. When an offence under the Act is committed by the company both the persons responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company are deemed to be guilty of the offence. The section does not require that the person in charge of the company should be found guilty before the company is held liable. The contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted.

The Government Deputy Analyst was examined as P.W. 4. He deposed that he received a sample of cow’s milk from the Food Inspector of the Karaikudi Municipality on 19th September, 1962 and his assistant analysed the milk on 24th September, 1962. The sa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document