AYYAVOO ACCUSED Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN my view, the revision petitioner, Ayyavoo, was very properly convicted upon the merits by the two courts below of the offences Under Sections 7 and 16 (1) (a) (ii)read with Section 2 (1) (a) and (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Indisputably, the sentence, rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2000, though apparently heavy, is the minimum, that has to be awarded under the law for a second commission of the offence, as is the case here.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urges only two grounds. The first is that there was no "sale" within the meaning of the Act, because the revision petitioner (Ayyavoo) is only a servant of an employer, and he was taking milk to a relative of his master, the milk not being intended for sale at all. The point has no substance. The evidence which has been accepted by both the courts below, is very clearly to the effect that the Food Inspector, P. W. 1, purchased this milk from the revision petitioner, for cash paid on the spot, and that is certainly a "sale" within the meaning of the Act.

(3.) THE 2nd ground is that the milk might have deteriorated in its constitution or content, during the appreciable period that has elapsed between the seizure of the milk and the analysis by the Public Analyst. Related to this ground is another contention urged on behalf of the revision petitioner, that there is a slight difference between the results of this analysis and a later analysis of the same sample by the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. This slight difference in the percentage of fat and solids non-fat might itself indicate the inference that milk is liable to change or deterioration in its composition by lapse of time, notwithstanding the addition of a preservative such as formalin in the prescribed quantities.