Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanjore. Two persons, that is, the master and his servant, were prosecuted for selling adulterated buffalo's milk. The master pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The servant accused 2, was let-off on the ground that S.7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, .1954, does not contemplate both the master and the servant to be prosecuted. S.7 is as follows: "No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute (1) any adulterated food." 2. According to the interpretation put by the Magistrate, if a person sells himself he can be prosecuted, or if he sells by any person, he can be prosecuted, but not the person through whom he sells. It is not a correct interpretation of the section. The section means that even though he may sell by another person, still the master is liable. But the fact of selling by the person still remains. Since the seller in the case actually is the servant, he cannot escape prosecution. If it is proved that the 2nd accused was selling only on behalf of the master, accused (1), then the master will also be liable. Therefore both the seller, the servant as well as the person on whose behalf the milk was sold, viz., the master, are liable. The acquittal of the 2nd accused, is therefore set aside. The 2nd accused is convicted. In view of the fact that the master admits the adulteration and as the 2nd accused was only a servant under the roaster, the 1st accused, I think a fine of Rs. 5 will meet the ends of justice. The 2nd accused is therefore convicted under S.7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5, in default to undergo three days' rigorous imprisonment. The appeal is allowed. Allowed.