AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1 paragraphs · 89 words
Lakshmana Rao, J.—The sample was in fact analyzed by the Government Analyst and it was not incumbent on the Magistrate to send it again to the Government Analyst u/s 16, Clause (5), Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1918. There is therefore no ground for interference with the conviction of the petitioners and the sentence of petitioner 1 is not excessive. But petitioner 2 is the ser vant and his fine is excessive. The fine of petitioner 2 is therefore reduced to Rs. 5 and otherwise this petition is dismissed.