Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Lakshmana Rao, J.
Public Prosecutor
Versus
Narayana Ayyar
Decided On : 12.09.1939
Adulterated Ghee - Hotel-keeper - The respondent, a hotel-keeper, was found to have stored adulterated ghee for service to his customers. The court held that the ghee stored did not meet the definition of ghee as per the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, and the respondent was convicted under Section 5(1)(b) and Rule 28 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a hotel-keeper, stored adulterated ghee for service to his customers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the respondent guilty of storing adulterated ghee under Section 5(1)(b) and Rule 28 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act.
Issues: The issue was whether the respondent was guilty of storing adulterated ghee for sale to customers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the ignorance of the respondent regarding the nature or quality of the article is not a defense to the prosecution under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act.
Final Decision: The respondent was convicted under Section 5(1)(b) and Rule 28 of the Prevention of Adulteration Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5 or face two weeks of simple imprisonment.
Lakshmana Rao, J.
1. The respondent is an hotel-keeper and the ghee stored by him for service to his customers with their meal was found to be adulterated. The price of the ghee is necessarily included in the price of the meal, and ghee, as defined in Section 2, Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act (Act 3 of 1918), means ghee prepared exclusively from butter made from cows, or buffaloes milk or cream or both. The article stored was not therefore what it purported to be, and the respondent would be guilty of the offence of storing for sale adulterated ghee under Section 5(1)(b) and Rule 28 framed under Section 20(2) of the Act. The ignorance of the respondent of the nature or quality of the article is no defence to a prosecution under Section 5 (1)(b) of the Act and his acquittal on the ground "that it cannot be said that the ghee is sold to the customers" is untenable. The order of acquittal is therefore set aside and the respondent is convicted under Section 5(1)(b), Prevention of Adulteration Act, and Rule 28 framed under Section 20, Clause (2) of the Act. He is sentenced to pay off fine of Rs. 5 and in default to simple imprisonment for two weeks.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
