20
REPORT OF THE PUBLIC ANALYST TO THE GOVT. OF MADRAS
In every case where a local dealer had been
convicted, further samples have been taken
and the results show that, by following up a
man in this way, it is possible to compel him
to sell genuine articles. He has given me
instances of 16 vendors who have been
sampled repeatedly and in some cases as many
as seven times. In almost every case after
two or more convictions, in one case four, and
generally with an increased fine subsequent
samples have been found to be genuine. I
understand that in some cases this regular
sampling of the same vendor has been
represented as something in the nature of
persecution. It is nothing of the sort. Food
vendors who made this complaint were,
I think, under the impression that having
been caught and having paid a fine they
were entitled to immunity for some time, in
fact they looked on paying a fine as, to some
extent, a licence to sell adulterated food.
The Health Officers throughout the Presi
-dency should realize that it is not the object
of the Act to collect money in the way of
fines, but to improve the quality of the food
supplied to the public and, though it may be
a long time before it is possible to rely on
obtaining genuine articles from petty dealers,
I do not consider that there should be any
difficulty whatever in driving the bigger
dealers into supplying unadulterated food.
Various defences have been put up when
cases have been heard. One of the most
popular is that the article was sold as received
from the wholesaler. Unless such an article
is sold in an original sealed container this
defence should be received with great caution.
If the matter be investigated it will usually
be found that the retail dealer had paid
something less than the normal price of a
genuine article so that he should, at the very
least, have been suspicious. In other cases,
as for instance, where a man dealing regularly
in a certain food sells such a food containing
a high percentage of adulterant, the defence
is merely ridiculous. It is inconceivable that
a regular vendor of coffee, for example,
could not know by appearance and taste
that his supply contained a considerable
proportion of chicory. In cases of real
doubt a substantial retailer has a simple
remedy in his hands. He should deal with a
reputable wholesaler and obtain a written
guarantee that the article supplied is pure.
Alternatively he should arrange with his
wholesaler to pay in arrears deducting any
fines from the wholesaler's account. The
Municipal Health Officer at Ootacamund
informs me that some of the retail dealers
there have made arrangements on these lines
with their wholesale dealers and that subse
-quently they have had no difficulty whatever
in getting a genuine article. I understand
that similar action has been taken by some of
the ghee sellers in Madras City.
Another defence which has been put for
-ward is that coffee hotels and restaurants are
entitled to add water to milk which they keep
for supply to customers either in coffee or as
a separate article. This defence is only
available when the vendor can prove that in
no circumstances is he prepared to supply
milk alone. The Act as amended now says
that the Court may presume that " any food
found in the possession of a person who is in
the habit of storing like articles of food for
sale has been stored by such person for sale."
Accordingly when milk is found in the
possession of a hotel-keeper who is in the
habit of selling milk as such there can be no
question that a prosecution lies. The addition
of water to milk prepared for sale is now
prohibited in the rules made under the Act,
and neither declaration nor labelling is any
defence.
TABLE 3.
Amount of Fines Realized during the year from 1st October 1931 to 30th September 1932.
Number and name
of place.
Amount
of fine
realized.
Remarks.
RS.
1. Madras City . . . 5,145 12 cases still pending.
2. Calicut . . .
195
1 case still pending.
3. Coimbatore . . .
992
1
do.
4. Guntū r . . .
132
2 cases still pending.
5. Karaikkudi . . .
185
1 case still pending.
6. Kumbakō nam . . .
328
. . .
7. Madura . . .
367
. . .
8. Mangalore . . .
424
. . .
9. Mettupalaiyam . . .
222
. . .
Number and name
of pl ace.
Amount
of fine
realized.
Remarks.
Rs.
10. Nellore . . .
312
3 cases still pending.
11. Ootacamund . . .
925
. . .
12. Proddatur . . .
1
. . .
13. Rajahmundry . . .
357
. . .
14. Salem . . .
306
. . .
15. Tellicherry . . .
586
. . .
16. Trichinopoly . . .
52
. . .
17. Virudhunagar . . .
104
. . .
18. Vizagapatam . . .
319
7 cases still pending.
Table 3 shows the amount of fines recovered
by the various municipalities. Madras Cor
-poration pay a contribution of Rs. 5,000 per
year to Government. It will be seen that
this has been more than recovered in fines.
Coimbatore and Ootacamund have more than
covered their contribution of Rs. 720. In
other municipalities a substantial proportion
of the contribution (Rs. 720) has been
realized. If, as is hoped, there is a considera
- b l e r i s e i n t h e a v e r a g e f i n e n e x t y e a r , n o
municipality should have any difficulty in
recovering at least its contribution to Govern
- m e n t .