Misbranding of food products extends to selling buffalo milk as cow's milk; sentencing proviso and partner liability turn on proof.

Selling buffalo milk as cow's milk constitutes misbranding because the two are distinct articles of food under the Act, so the broader misbranding offence applies and the proviso permitting a sentence below the statutory minimum does not. The plea of guilt left no scope to reopen factual innocence or the adequacy of the analyst's certificate, and the conviction and minimum sentence were sustained for the liable accused. Vicarious criminal liability could not be fastened on the absent partner without proof of knowledge, consent, connivance, or neglect, and the prosecution failed to establish that mental element. The absent partner was therefore entitled to acquittal on that charge.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether selling buffalo milk as cow's milk amounted to misbranding under the Act and attracted the main offence provision, thereby excluding the lenient proviso to the sentencing section; (ii) whether the absent partner of the firm could be held liable for the offence in the absence of proof of knowledge, consent, connivance, or neglect.

Issue (i): whether selling buffalo milk as cow's milk amounted to misbranding under the Act and attracted the main offence provision, thereby excluding the lenient proviso to the sentencing section.

Analysis: The article sold was buffalo milk represented as cow's milk. Cow's milk and buffalo's milk are distinct articles of food for the purpose of the misbranding clause, and selling one by the name of the other squarely falls within misbranding. Once the offence falls within the broader misbranding provision and not exclusively within the narrow class saved by the proviso, the court cannot reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum on the footing of the proviso. The plea of guilt also left no room to reopen factual innocence or the adequacy of the analyst's certificate.

Conclusion: The offence was misbranding under the Act, and the sentencing proviso was inapplicable; the conviction and minimum sentence were sustained against the liable accused.

Issue (ii): whether the absent partner of the firm could be held liable for the offence in the absence of proof of knowledge, consent, connivance, or neglect.

Analysis: Vicarious criminal liability for a partner absent at the time of sale depended either on proof of consent, connivance, or neglect, or on the statutory deeming provision making a person in charge of the business liable subject to the statutory defence of lack of knowledge or due diligence. On the facts, the prosecution did not prove the required mental element against the absent partner, and the misbranding was shown to have arisen from an on-the-spot representation by the present partner. The circumstances did not justify fastening liability on the absent partner merely because he was a partner in the firm.

Conclusion: The absent partner was entitled to acquittal on this charge.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in substance and the convictions were maintained, with only the absent partner escaping liability on the particular charge considered against him.

Ratio Decidendi: Selling food under the name of another distinct article of food constitutes misbranding, and the proviso permitting sentence below the statutory minimum applies only where the offence falls exclusively within the narrowly specified class saved by that proviso.

---