Judgment.- This is an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of therespondent, one Sengammal, by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate,Coimbatore, in C.C.No. 120 of 1959. The facts are very simple, and within ashort compass. The respondent was prosecuted for sale of adulterated butterunder section 16(1)(g)(i) read with section 7(1) of the Prevention of FoodAdulteration Act, 1954. The facts are not in dispute that the respondent soldthree quarter pound of butter to the Food Inspector which, on analysis, wasfound to have been adulterated. The plea of the respondent was that she soldonly goat’s butter, which does not fall within the ambit of the definition inthe 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 samplecontained 85 per cent. of fat not derived from milk or cream. According to thelearned Public Prosecutor, this implies that 15 per cent. of the fat did consistof butter fat, derived from milk or cream of cow or buff do which, would excludethe defence of a sale of goat butter. Hence, it is argued, the acquittal of therespondent by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate was unjustified. 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 theacquittal and succeed. For the relevant rules clearly show (Appendix B, ruleA-11(5)) 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 with other butter, suchstuff would not fall within the definition. The results of the analyst do notconclusively prove, in the present case, that the sample did not contain anadmixture of goat-butter. It may be worthwhile for the authorities, who areinterested in implementing the provisions of the Act, to devise some simplechemical test whereby the presence of goat-butter in any sample can beinfallibly detected. If this is done, and the possibility of goat-butter beingpresent is excluded, then such prosecutions can be conducted without the risk ofthe escape by the offender through this loophole. With these observations, theappeal is dismissed. A copy of the judgment will be forwarded to the FoodInspectorate Authorities for information. R.M. ----- Appeal dismissed.