Judgment :- 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the District Magistrate of Palghat acquitting the respondents-accused who were prosecuted under S.16(1) read with S.7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The first accused is the depot manager and licensee of the Nambissan's Dairy Depot at Palghat, while the second accused is the salesman in that depot. 2. On 20th July 1961, Pw.1, one of the Food Inspectors of the Palghat Municipality visited the accused's depot & purchased from the second accused two nazhies of 'skimmed thick butter-milk' out of the stock which they had exposed for sale. After purchasing the article, the Food Inspector notified his intention to get the same analysed. Sampling was done in conformity with the rules and one of the sample bottles was sent to the Public Analyst. His report Ext. P-6 showed that the sample was adulterated with not less than 11 per cent of water. The accused got the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, when again the analysis showed the sample was adulterated. Ext. D1 is the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta which showed that the sample contained milk solids-not-fat 6.4 per cent; milk fat 0.1 per cent and it has been stated that the sample of butter-milk was adulterated. On receipt of the report, the respondents were prosecuted. 3. Sale of the butter-milk to the Food Inspector is not disputed: The only contention raised by the defence is that the skimmed thick butter-milk sold by them is only a by-product of the manufacture of butter, that no standard of quality has been prescribed in Appendix B for butter-milk and as such they cannot be prosecuted even if it is found that there is an admixture of water in the butter-milk. The learned District Magistrate accepted the contention and found the accused not guilty and acquitted them. The correctness of the finding is challenged in this appeal. 4. The Act was enacted in 1954 in order to make provision for the prevention of food adulteration. Clause (i) in S.2 of the Act defines the term 'adulterated'. This clause contains sub-clauses (a) to (1) which lay down the different circumstances in which an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated. 4. The Act was enacted in 1954 in order to make provision for the prevention of food adulteration. Clause (i) in S.2 of the Act defines the term 'adulterated'. This clause contains sub-clauses (a) to (1) which lay down the different circumstances in which an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated. For instance, in sub-clause (a) an article of food is to be deemed to be adulterated if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be. Under sub-clause (1), an article of food is to be deemed to be adulterated if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities which are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability. S.2(xii) defines 'prescribed' to mean'prescribed by rules made under this Act'. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of S.4 and sub-section (I) of S.23 of the Act, the Central Government has made rules prescribing inter alia the standards of quality of different articles of food. R.5 says that standards of quality of the various articles of food specified in Appendix B to the rules are as defined in the Appendix. S.7 of the Act prohibits the manufacture, sale, storage or distribution of adulterated food and S.16 provides the penalty for the contravention of the provisions of S.7. 5. The first question, therefore, that falls for consideration is whether any standard has been fixed for the butter-milk. Clause A.11 in Appendix B contains provisions with regard to milk and milk products. It cannot be disputed that butter-milk is a product of milk. Butter-milk is defined in clause A. 11.03 of Appendix B. It says butter-milk means the product obtained after removal of butter from curd by churning or otherwise. It is true that no separate standard is prescribed, but it is not necessary as the standard is implicit in the definition itself. To amount to butter-milk, it should be a product obtained after removal of the butter from the curd. So we have to see how curd is defined. Curd is of two kinds. It has been defined in clause A. 11.06. To amount to butter-milk, it should be a product obtained after removal of the butter from the curd. So we have to see how curd is defined. Curd is of two kinds. It has been defined in clause A. 11.06. It is in the following terms: "Dahi or curd - (a) Whole milk Dahi or curd means the product obtained from fresh whole milk either of cow or buffalo by souring. It shall not contain any ingredient not found in milk except sucrose and/or gur. (b) Skimmed milk dahi or cued means the product obtained from skimmed milk either of cow or buffalo by souring. It shall not contain any ingredient not found in milk except sucrose and/or gur. The standard of purity of dahi or curd shall be the same as prescribed for the milk from which it is derived. Where dahi or curd, other than skimmed milk dahi is sold or offered for sale without any indication as to whether it is derived from cow or buffalo milk, the standards prescribed for dahi prepared from buffalo milk shall apply." So whether it is whole milk curd or whether it is skimmed milk curd, it shall not contain any ingredient not found in milk except sucrose and/ gur. Now we have to go to the definition and standard prescribed for milk and skimmed milk. Clause A. 11.01 defines milk as meaning the normal clean and fresh secretion obtained by complete milking of the udder of a healthy cow, buffalo, goat or sheep during the period following at least 72 hours after calving or until colostrum free whether such secretion has been processed or not. Clause A. 11.02 defines skimmed milk, either fresh or reconstituted. It means milk from which all or most of the milk fat has been removed by mechanical or any other process and includes "separated milk" or "machine skimmed milk". The milk solids other than milk fat shall be not less than 8.5 per cent. Butter-milk cannot be prepared from skimmed curd, because skimmed curd will not ordinarily contain any butter because the milk fat has been removed out of it. Butter has been defined as the product prepared exclusively from milk cream or curd of cow or buffalo. The milk solids other than milk fat shall be not less than 8.5 per cent. Butter-milk cannot be prepared from skimmed curd, because skimmed curd will not ordinarily contain any butter because the milk fat has been removed out of it. Butter has been defined as the product prepared exclusively from milk cream or curd of cow or buffalo. From these definitions, it is clear that butter-milk which is in essence curd from which batter is extracted, should necessarily contain the same quantity of solids-not-fat, which soured milk (i.e. curd) should contain. Hence if out of this curd, butter is removed, the solids other than milk-fat in it, should still be there to the extent to which it was originally in the milk, i. e., 8.5 percent. There can, therefore, be no doubt that butter-milk which is the product remaining after the removal of butter from the curd should contain 8.5 per cent of solids-not-fat and in this case analysis showed that the solids-not-fat was only 6.4 per cent. Thus due regard being had to the definitions and standards prescribed for milk, curd, butter and the definition of butter, as the residue left after removal of butter from curds, it can be easily gathered what standard butter-milk is to satisfy and that is the reason why it was felt not necessary to prescribe the standard of the butter-milk separately. In any case, the non-specification of a standard for butter-milk does not absolve a vendor from conforming to the standard that is necessarily implied in respect of butter-milk. If water can be freely added, one fails to see what the need was for defining butter-milk at all. 6. An attempt was made on behalf of the accused to argue that the solids-not-fat contents of butter-milk cannot be the same as the solids-not-fat contents of curd from which it is obtained, because chemical and bacterial action that sets in during the production of butter, affects the solid-not-fat left in the residue. No evidence has been let in and no authority has been cited on behalf of the accused to support the contention that the chemical and bacterial action that may set in during the production of butter will affect the solids-not-fat contents of curd. No evidence has been let in and no authority has been cited on behalf of the accused to support the contention that the chemical and bacterial action that may set in during the production of butter will affect the solids-not-fat contents of curd. It was then stated that water has to be added at various stages of the production of butter so as to facilitate churning and for the better formation of butter granules and that some solids-not-fat contents inextricably get engulfed in the butter granules when they are formed in the process of churning. Some authorities were cited to show that water has to be added at different stages of churning, but there can be no doubt that butter can be separated from curd by churning without adding water. The question is not whether it is necessary to add small quantities of water at different stages of churning to ensure a better or speedier formation of butter granules. That may probably be necessary from the point of view of a butter manufacturer whose aim is to make his batter business economically sound to get the maximum butter from milk, cream or curd. Water can be added provided it is not sold as an article of food, but is treated as waste. When it is offered for human consumption, it must certainly conform to the standard prescribed in that behalf and if the standard is not obtained, it would be deemed to be adulterated. Learned State Prosecutor has referred to certain observations made under section B - butter-milk - on pages 118 and 119 in Allen's Commercial Organic Analysis, Vol. IX, Vth Edition, particularly the following passage which appears on p. 119: "....The composition of butter-milk closely follows that of milk except that a portion of the lactose has been converted into lactic acid and there may be a certain amount of protein degradation. On analysis butter-milk often appears to be watered, owing to the fact that 'butter-grains', are washed in the churn with cold water which is usually run off into the milk. The legality of this operation must be left an open question as the butter factory looks on butter-milk as a waste product. On analysis butter-milk often appears to be watered, owing to the fact that 'butter-grains', are washed in the churn with cold water which is usually run off into the milk. The legality of this operation must be left an open question as the butter factory looks on butter-milk as a waste product. The writers are of opinion that in cases where butter-milk is sold ostensively for diotic or toilet purposes, it should be undiluted." It was also pointed out that under the Act and the Rules it is not a valid defence to plead that in the process of production of a food article, some extraneous material gets unavoidably mixed up with it and it cannot be penalised. It was pointed out that a provision like proviso to S.5 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act (1918) - which laid down that: "No offence shall be deemed to have been committed where in the process of production, collection or preparation .... of the food some extraneous material has unaviodably been admixed therewith." - is conspicuously absent in the Central Act of 1954. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that being a penal statute a strict construction should be adopted and that it is only when the thing charged is an offence within the plain meaning of the words used in the statute that courts should hold that any offence is committed and that whenever there is doubt the construction favourable to the accused should be preferred. In meeting a similar argument in the case in Joshi v. Shimpi AIR. 1961 SC. 1494, Subba Rao, J., stated: "... In meeting a similar argument in the case in Joshi v. Shimpi AIR. 1961 SC. 1494, Subba Rao, J., stated: "... But these rules do not in any way affect the fundamental principles of interpretation namely, that the primary test is the language employed in the Act and when the words are clear and plain the court is bound to accept the expressed intention of the legislature." The latest view on the relevant rule of construction is found in "Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes," 10th Edn., at p. 262, which reads, "....It is now recognised that the paramount duty of the judicial interpreter is to put upon the language of the legislature, honestly and faithfully its plain and rational meaning and to promote its object." Adverting to Acts against adulteration, the learned author quotes Day, J., in Newby v. Sims (1894) 63 L.J.M.C. 228 at p. 229, as follows: "I cannot concur in the contention that because these Acts (against adulteration) impose penalties, therefore, their construction should, necessarily, be strict. I think that neither greater nor less strictness should be applied to those than to other statutes." There can, therefore, be no doubt that so far as possible courts should adopt the interpretation which will promote and further the object and policy of the legislation and suppress the mischief which the statute was enacted to prevent. Therefore, we feel no doubt that the addition of water in curd and reducing the solids-not-fat contents and selling the same as butter-milk will be an offence under the Act. For all these reasons we hold that the acquittal of the accused is erroneous and has to be set aside. In the result, the order of acquittal is set aside. Both the accused are found guilty and convicted as charged. The first accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The second accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three weeks. Time for payment of fine one month from this date. The appeal is allowed. Allowed.