Full Judgment
Anantanarayanan, J.
1. This is an appeal fifed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent, one Sangammal, by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, in C. C. No. 120 of 1959. The facts are very simple, and within a short compass. The respondent was prosecuted for sale of adulterated butter under Section 16(1)(g)(i) read with Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The facts are not in dispute that the respondent sold three-quarter pound of butter to the Food Inspector which, on analysis, was found to have been adulterated.
The plea of the respondent was that she sold only goat's butter, which does not fall within the ambit of the definition in the rules of the Act, and that consequently, she was not liable for any offence. I may here briefly state that the analyst's certificate shows that the sample contained 85 per Cent of fat not derived from milk or cream. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, this implies that 15 per cent of the fat did consist of butter fat, derived from milk on cream of cow or buffalo which would exclude the defence of a sale of goat butter. Hence, it is argued, the acquittal of the respondent by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate was unjustified.
2. I have now gone carefully into the matter, and I find that the State cannot, upon the facts of this particular case, at least, canvass the merits of the acquittal and succeed. For the relevant rules clearly show (Appendix B, Rule A 11.05) that butter, as referred to in the Act, implies 'the product prepared exclusively from the milk or cream of cow or buffalo or both.' Hence, even if there is some admixture of goat butter and other butter, such stuff would not fall within the definition. The results of the analyst do not conclusively prove in the present case, that the sample did not contain an admixture of goat butter.
It may be worthwhile for the authorities, who are interested in implementing the provisions of the Act, to devise some sample (simple) chemical test whereby the presence of goat butter in any sample can be infallibly detected. If this is done, and the possibility of goat butter being present is excluded, then such prosecutions can be conducted without the risk of the escape by the offender through this loophole. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed. A copy of the judgment will be forwarded to the Food Inspectorate authorities for information.