Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Appellant in person.
  • Accused not represented.
Judges
  • Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Appellant in person.
  • Accused not represented.
Judges
  • Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal of the accused in C.C. No. 449 of 1943 before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Anantapur. The accused was charged under R. 29(b) of the rules framed under the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act and S. 5(1)(b) of the Act read with R. 27. The allegation was that on 28 March the accused was selling milk adulterated with water. A Sanitary Inspector encountered the accused offering milk for sale, purchased milk from him for two annas in order to test it, took three samples (sending one to a chemical analyst) and prepared a declaration and report. The analyst's report showed the sample contained 46% water. The Magistrate originally acquitted the accused, relying on the decision of Mr. Justice Horwill in In re Ballamkonda Kanakayya (1). The appellate court found that the Magistrate misapplied that ruling, set aside the acquittal, convicted the accused under R. 29(a) and S. 5(1)(b) read with R. 27, and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 5 with simple imprisonment for one week in default.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the acquittal was proper where the Sanitary Inspector purchased milk from the accused and then took samples showing adulteration.
  2. Whether the decision in In re Ballamkonda Kanakayya (1) (which required proof of sale) prevented conviction where samples were taken by a Sanitary Inspector acting in an official capacity.
  3. Given the absence of any evidence of previous conviction, whether the appropriate charge and punishment should be under R. 29(a) rather than R. 29(b).

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
In re Ballamkonda Kanakayya (1) The ruling stated that there must be proof that the accused sold the milk; in that case there was no proof of sale and the Sanitary Inspector had seized part of the milk, so the accused could not be found guilty. It was also pointed out in that ruling that if the Sanitary Inspector had purchased the milk, the accused would have been guilty. The court held that the Magistrate misapplied this ruling. The precedent did not apply because, in the present case, there was evidence that the Sanitary Inspector purchased the milk for two annas (constituting a sale), so the earlier ruling did not preclude conviction.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the Magistrate's reliance on In re Ballamkonda Kanakayya (1) and concluded that the Magistrate had misunderstood that decision. The earlier ruling required proof of sale; in the cited case there was no proof of sale because the Sanitary Inspector had seized part of the milk. Here, by contrast, the Sanitary Inspector testified that he purchased the milk for two annas and only after purchasing did he observe adulteration and take samples. The court reasoned that the fact the purchaser was a Sanitary Inspector does not negate that a purchase occurred and therefore does not negate the element of sale necessary for the offence. Because there was evidence of purchase/sale and the analyst's report indicated 46% water, the court found that the ruling relied upon by the Magistrate had no application to these facts. Finally, noting the absence of any evidence of prior conviction, the court determined the appropriate charge to be under R. 29(a) rather than R. 29(b), and proceeded to convict and sentence accordingly.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The order of acquittal was set aside, and the accused was convicted under R. 29(a) and S. 5(1)(b) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act read with R. 27 of the rules. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5 with simple imprisonment for one week in default.

Implications: The direct effect is that the accused's acquittal was overturned and he was convicted and sentenced for selling adulterated milk. The court's decision rests on the view that a purchase by a Sanitary Inspector constitutes proof of sale for purposes of the offence; the opinion does not purport to establish any broader new precedent beyond applying that principle to the facts of this case.

Show full summary ...

    The Public Prosecutor v. Narayana Sing

    This is an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal of the accused in C.C No. 449 of 1943 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Anantapur. He was charged under R. 29(b) of the rules framed under the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act and S. 5(1)(b) of the said Act read with R. 27. The case against the accused was that he was selling milk adulterated with water on the 28th of March last. The Sanitary Inspector found him offering milk for sale. He purchased from him milk for two annas with a view to test it. He tested the milk and found that it was adulterated with water. He made samples of it and gave a declaration to the accused and sent a report. P.W 1 the Sanitary Inspector proved the purchase by him for two annas of the milk which the accused was offering for sale. He took out of it three samples and sent one to the chemical analyst. The analyst's report showed that the sample milk sent to him contained 46 per cent of water. The Magistrate held that since the Sanitary Inspector took out the samples in his official capacity the accused could not be found guilty and he relied upon the decision of Mr. Justice Horwill in In re Ballamkonda Kanakayya (1). The Magistrate has evidently not correctly understood that ruling. All that was stated there was that there must be proof that the accused sold the milk. In that particular case there was no proof of sale and the evidence disclosed that the Sanitary Inspector seized a part of the milk and sent it to the analyst. The accused could not be found guilty as there was no evidence of sale. In this case there is the evidence of the Sanitary Inspector that he purchased milk for two annas and that after purchasing the same he noticed that it was adulterated and then took out a sample and forwarded it to the authorities. The ruling has therefore no application to the facts of this case. It was pointed out even in that ruling that if the Sanitary Inspector had purchased it the accused would have been guilty of the offence. The fact that the purchaser in this case happened to be the Sanitary Inspector would not make it any the less a purchase. The order of acquittal is therefore set aside. There is no evidence to show that the accused had any previous conviction. The accused will have to be convicted for an offence punishable under R. 29(a). I therefore convict the accused under R. 29(a) and S. 5(1)(b) of the Act mentioned above read with R. 27 of the rules framed under that Act and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 5 with simple imprisonment in default for one week.

    N.R.R

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    The Public Prosecutor v. Narayana Sing
    (Nov 26, 1943)