http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: M. V. JOSHI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.   U. SHIMPI AND ANOTHER.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/02/1961

BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. DAYAL, RAGHUBAR

CITATION:  1961 AIR 1494            1961 SCR  (3) 986  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1966 SC 128  (16)  F          1976 SC 133  (22)  R          1982 SC 149  (224)  E          1982 SC 949  (15)

ACT: Food  Adulteration-Butter-If includes butter made from  curd No  foreign article mixed but below standard  prescribed--If adulterated-Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954),  ss.  2(i)(a),  7(i),  16(1)(a)-Prevention  of   Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Appendix B, r. A-11, 0. 5.

HEADNOTE: The appellant was selling butter which was found to be below the  standard prescribed.  He was convicted under  s.  16(1) read  with  S. 7(1) of the Prevention of  Food  Adulteration Act,  1954, and sentenced to undergo  rigorous  imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-.  He contended (i) that butter prepared from curd was not butter within the meaning  of r. A-11, 0. 5 of Appendix B to the  Rules  which defined  butter  to mean ’the product  prepared  exclusively from  milk  or  cream,  and (ii) that  the  butter  was  not adulterated as no foreign article bad been added to it. Held, that the appellant had been rightly convicted. Butter prepared from curd also came within the definition of " butter " in r. A-11, 0. 5 of Appendix B to the Rules.  The plain  meaning of the words used in the rule indicated  that butter prepared from milk or cream, by whatever process, was comprehended  by the definition.  Even where milk was  first converted into curd and then butter prepared therefrom,  the butter was still prepared from milk. Sadashiv  v.  P.  V.  Bhalerao,  I.L.R.  [1959]  Bom.  1800, approved. Section  2(i)(1) lays down that an article of food shall  be deemed  to  be adulterated if its quality  or  purity  falls below  the  prescribed  standard  or  its  constituents  are present in quantities which are in excess of the  prescribed limits  of variability.  If the prescribed standard  is  not attained,  the statute treats’ such article, by fiction,  as adulterated food though in fact no foreign article is  added to  it.   Selling  butter  below  the  prescribed   standard amounted to selling adulterated butter.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

Hunt v. Richardson, [1916] 2 K.B. 446, distinguished.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Criminal Appeal No. 155  of 1959. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment order dated  July 23,  1959, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal  Appeal  No. 165 of 1959. H.   J.  Umrigar, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji,  Rameshwar Nath and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.                             987 Naunit Lal, for respondent No. 1. B.   K. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No. 2. 1961.  February 27.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA  RAO,  J.-This  appeal by special  leave  is  directed against  the  judgment of the High Court  of  Judicature  at Bombay allowing the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against the  acquittal of the appellant by the Judicial  Magistrate, First Class, Thana, and convicting him under s. 16(1),  read with  s. 7(1), of the Prevention of Food  Adulteration  Act, 1954  (hereinafter  called the Act), and sentencing  him  to undergo  rigorous imprisonment for two months and to  pay  a fine of Rs. 250/-. The appellant is the proprietor of a shop at Thana known  as the Cottage Industries.  He is a dealer in butter.  On  June 27,   1957,  the  Food  Inspector  of  the   Than&   Borough Municipality visited the shop of the appellant and purchased from   him  some  quantity  of  Khandeshi   butter.    After purchasing  the  butter,  the Food  Inspector  notified  his intention  to  the appellant that he was going  to  get  the butter  analysed.   He divided the butter into  three  equal parts,  put them in three separate bottles and  duly  sealed the bottles in the presence of two panchas.  He gave one  of those  bottles  to  the appellant, sent one  to  the  Public Analyst  and  kept the third with  himself.   The  appellant signed  the labels on the bottles and also passed a  receipt in  favour of the Food Inspector in token of the receipt  of one  of  the  bottles and that receipt  was  signed  by  the appellant and counter-signed by two panch witnesses. The Public Analyst analysed the butter sent to him and, sent his report in due course.  In the report it was.stated  that the butter contained 18.32% foreign fat, 19.57% moisture and 64.67% milk fat. On October 5, 1957, the Food Inspector filed a complaint  in the  Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First  Class,  Than&, against the appellant.  It was alleged 126 988 therein that the said butter was found to be " adulterated " as defined in s. 2(1) (a) of the Act and that. the appellant had  committed an offence under s. 16 of the Act by  selling the adulterated article of food in contravention of s.  7(1) of  the  Act and the rules made  thereunder.   The  Judicial Magistrate acquitted the appellant on the ground that it had not  been  proved beyond reasonable doubt  that  the  butter which  was purchased from the shop of the appellant was  the very  same butter which was sent to the Public  Analyst  and also for the reason that butter prepared out of curd did not come  within  the  mischief of the definition  of  the  word butter " in rule A.11.05 of Appendix B to the Prevention  of Food  Adulteration  Rules,  1955  (hereinafter  called   the Rules).  The Food Inspector preferred an appeal against that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

order  of acquittal to the High Court.  The High Court  held that the conclusion of the learned Judicial Magistrate  that the  butter  purchased from the appellant  might  have  been tampered  with before it was sent to the Public Analyst  was not  based on any evidence on the record.  It  further  held that   butter  prepared  from  curds  was  covered  by   the definition  of  the word " butter " given  in  the  relevant rule.  It further held that- even if the butter prepared out of  curds ’was not butter as defined in the said  rule,  the appellant  would still be liable under s. 2 (1) (a)  of  the Act  as  it  contained foreign fat and,  therefore,  was  an adulterated  article of food within the meaning of the  said section.  In the result it set aside the order of acquittal, convicted  the appellant under the Act and sentenced him  to rigorous  imprisonment for two months and to pay a  fine  of Rs. 250/-.  Hence this appeal. Learned  counsel  for  the appellant raised  before  us  the following  points: (1) the High Court went wrong in  holding that  the appellant had committed an offence under the  Act, even though the butter in question was not butter within the meaning of the Rules. (2) Butter prepared from curds is  not butter within the meaning of r. A.11.05 of Appendix B to the Rules.  (3)  Butter sent to the Public Analyst was  not  the same butter seized from the appellant. (4) The 989 report  of the Public’ Analyst was vague and, therefore,  no conviction could be based on it. For the purpose of this appeal we are assuming in favour  of the  appellant  that he would not be liable  for  conviction unless  the  butter seized from him was  butter  within  the meaning  of  the rule.  We shall proceeded to  consider  the appeal on that basis.  In this view, nothing further need be said on the first question raised by learned counsel. At  the  outset  it  would be  convenient  to  consider  the ingredients of the offence alleged to have been I  committed by the appellant.  Section 2(1) of the Act defines the  word " adulterated " and it says that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if it satisfies one or other of the conditions  prescribed  in  sub-cls. (a)  to  (1).   We  are concerned  in  this appeal with sub-cl. (1) where  under  an article  of  food shall 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. Section  2(xii) defines " prescribed " to mean "  prescribed by  rules  made under this Act." In exercise of  the  powers conferred  by sub-s. (2) of s. 4 and sub-s. (1) of s. 23  of the  Act,  the Central Government  made  rules  prescribing, inter  alia, the standards of quality of different  articles of  food.   Rule  5 says that standards of  quality  of  the various  articles  of food specified in Appendix  B  to  the Rules  are  as defined in that appendix.   Rule  A.11.05  of Appendix  B  to the Rules defines " butter " to mean  "  the product  prepared exclusively from the milk or cream of  cow or  buffalo,  or both, or without the addition of  salt  and annatto and shall contain not less than 80 per cent. of milk fat  and  not more than 16 per cent. of moisture  "  and  no preservative  is permissible in butter.  Therefore,  if  the quality  or  purity  of  butter  falls  below  the  standard prescribed  by  the  said rule or its  constituents  are  in excess of the prescribed limits of variability, it shall  be deemed  to be adulterated within the meaning of s. 2 of  the Act.  If the prescribed standard is not attained, 990 the  statute  treats such butter, by fiction,  as  an  adul-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

terated food, though in fact it is not adulterated.  To  put it  in  other  words, by reason of the fiction,  it  is  not permissible  for  an  accused  to  prove  that,  though  the standard prescribed is not attained, the article of food  is in  fact  not  adulterated.   The  nonconformity  with   the standard  prescribed makes such butter an adulterated  food. Section  7  of  the Act  prohibits  the  manufacture,  sale, storage, or distribution of such food.  Section 16  provides a  penalty for the contravention of the provisions of s.  7. The first question, therefore, that falls for  consideration is  whether the butter seized from the appellant was  butter as defined by rule A.11.05 of Appendix B to the Rules. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  argues  that   butter prepared from curd is not butter as defined in the Act  for, the  following  reasons: (1) the definition of the  word  "I butter " does not include the product which is obtained from curd, as it refers only to a product which is prepared  from milk or cream; (2) the three words, " milk ", " cream "  and "  curd  ", are separately and exhaustively defined  in  the Rules and, therefore, the omission of the word "I curd "  in the said rule is a clear legislative indication that  butter prepared from curd is not butter within the meaning of  that rule;  and  (3) the word "exclusively" found  in  the,  rule emphasizes the fact that butter to come under the definition in the Act should have been prepared from milk or cream  and from no other product. Before  considering  the  argument  advanced,  it  would  be necessary  to notice how butter is made.  In England  butter is made as follows:               "...  as quickly as the milk is separated  the               cream  is cooled.  The cream is  delivered  to               the creamery, where it is graded according  to               at least two classes, sweet and  sour.........               Then  it is pasteurized, and if ripened  cream               butter  is  to  be  made  a  pure  culture  of               Streptococcus  lactic is introduced  to  start               the desirable souring process.  If sweet cream               butter is to be made no starter is added.  The               best storage butter is made from unripened  or               sweet cream.  After               991               pasteurization and ripening the cream is  held               overnight, when it is churned, washed,  salted               and  worked in the combined churn and  worker.               " (See Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 4, p. 469.) In  India  butter  is prepared in the  rural  areas  by  the indigenous  process  out  of soured milk  and  cream,  i.e., curd’.   In some cities butter is also made directly out  of milk and cream; but the percentage of the said production is insignificant compared with the indigenous system  obtaining throughout  India.   Whatever process  is  adopted,  whether butter is taken directly out of milk or taken out of  soured milk  or  cream, it is prepared only from  milk.   The  only difference  between  the two is that in the case  of  butter prepared  from curd there is an intervening souring  process which  is  not  necessary in the, case  of  butter  directly prepared  from  milk or cream.  Shortly stated,  butter,  by what,ever process it is prepared, is a product prepared from milk.  Now  let us look at the relevant rules to consider  whether they  provide  any  reasonable  basis  for  sustaining   the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.   We shall  now  read  the relevant rules of Appendix  B  to  the Rules.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

             A.    11.01.  Milk means 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.               A.    11.05. Butter means the product prepared               exclusively  from the milk or cream of cow  or               buffalo,  or both, or without the addition  of               salt  and annatto and shall contain  not  less               than  80  per cent. of milk fat and  not  more               than   16   per   cent.   of   moisture.    No               preservative is permissible in butter.               A  11.06.  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  gradient               not found in milk.               A.    11.10.  Cream means the portion of  milk               rich  in  milk  fat which  has  risen  to  the               surface of milk on               992               standing  and  has been removed or  which  has               been separated from milk by centrifugal  force               It  shall contain not less than 40 percent  of               milk  fat  and  shall not  contain  any  added               substance.  The fat separated from cream shall               conform  to the specification  prescribed  for               ghee.               A.    11.14.  Ghee means the  pure   clarified               fat  derived  solely from milk  or  from  milk               curds  or  from cream to  which  no  colouring               matter or preservative has been added. It was asked with some plausibility that if the rule  making authority  did  not  intend to make a  distinction,  in  the context of making butter, between milk, cream and curd,  why did  it define the said three products separately, and  why, in  the  case of butter, curd was not shown as  one  of  the products from which it could be prepared, while in the  case of ghee, it was shown as a separate produce from which  ghee could  be  prepared.   The first  criticism  can  easily  be answered.  Milk, cream and butter have got to be  separately defined,  for they are sold in those three different  forms, and the question of adulteration of the said products  would have to be considered separately. in regard to the standards prescribed  for them.  There is also no force in the  second criticism.  The original rules were framed on September  12, 1955,  and the definition of ghee was introduced therein  in 1956.   The authority making the subsequent rule might  have thought,,  of  clarifying the definition of  ghee  to  steer clear  of  the  difficulties  raised  in  the  case  of  the definition  of butter.  Putting aside the general  argument, let  us now look at the relevant provisions.  The  following words  in  the definition stand out prominently:  "  product prepared  exclusively from milk or cream of cow or  buffalo, or  both" To be butter it should comply with  the  following conditions:  (i) it shall be a product from milk  or  cream; (ii) the said milk or dream shall be that of cow or buffalo, or  of  both; (iii) the product shall be prepared  from  the said  milk; and (iv) it shall be prepared  exclusively  from the said milk.  "Product" means " a thing produced by nature or a natural process or manufacture." What is the meaning of the 993

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

word  "  prepared  " ? The Rules use  different  words  for different  milk-products. In the case of butter,, milk.  and card,  the word used is "obtained"; and in the case of  ghee the  word used is derived ". The dictionary meaning  of  the word  "prepare" is, "to bring into proper state for  use  by some special or technical, process, to manufacture, to  make or  compound  " : (see The Shorter  Oxford  Dictionary,  3rd edn., at p. 1571).  The word has a comprehensive meaning and takes  in,  different processes involved in making  a  thing ready  for use or consumption in a particular form.   Butter is a product prepared by a process out of milk, whether  the process  involved  is a simple or a  complicated  one,  and, therefore, butter drawn from curd is a product prepared from milk.   The word " exclusively " in our view, refers to  the milk or cream of cow or buffalo.  " Milk " has been  defined as  secretion obtained by milking of the udder of a  healthy cow,  buffalo, goat or sheep, whereas the definition  of  to butter  "  is  confined exclusively to the milk  of  cow  or buffalo.   The  word  " exclusively  ",  therefore,  has  no relation  to other milk products.  The plain meaning of  the words  used  in the section indicates that  butter  prepared from milk or cream, by whatever process, is comprehended  by the definition. Learned  counsel  for the appellant contends that  the  rule being  a part of a penal statute, it should be construed  in favour  of  the  accused.  When it is said  that  all  penal statutes are to be construed strictly it only means that the court  must see that the thing charged is an offence  within the plain meaning of the words used and must not strain  the words.   To  put  it  in other words,  the  rule  of  strict construction requires that the language of a statute  should be so construed that no case shall be held to fall within it which does not come ’Within the reasonable interpretation of the  statute.   It has also been held that in  construing  a penal  statute  it is a cardinal principle that in  case  of doubt, ’the construction favourable to the subject should be preferred.    But these rules do not in any way  affect  the fundamental  principles of interpretation, namely  that  the primary test is the language 994 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 the Interpretation of  Statutes"  10th edn., at p. 262, which reads,               ".........  it  is  now  recognized  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 (1) 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  strict-               ness should be applied to those than to other,               statutes." So judged, we have no doubt that the butter prepared’ out of curd falls within the plain meaning of the words in the said rule. Reliance  is placed by learned counsel for the appellant  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

the  decision of Miabhoy, J., in Narshinha Bhaskar v.  State of  Bombay (2).  The decision is certainly in favour of  the appellant.   But  a  full bench of the same  High  Court  in Sadashiv v. P. V. Bhalerao overruled the said decision.   In the  latter decision Chainani, C. J., after considering  the arguments, observed at p. 1804 thus:               "The  emphasis  is, therefore,  on  the  basic               material from which butter is prepared and not               on  the process by which it is made.  Dahi  is               prepared  from  milk by  souring  it.   Butter               prepared from Dahi can, therefore, be said  to               be butter prepared from milk itself, after  it               has      undergone     the     process      of               souring......................... There is also               a third method, which is used in some  dairies               and that is produce butter directly from  milk               itself.   In all,these three cases,  the-basic               material from which butter is               (1)  [1894]  63 L.J.M.C.  229.                (2) I.L.R. [1958] Bom. 63               (3) I.L.R. [1959] Bom. 1800.               995               made  is ’milk.  Only ’the  processes  adopted               for making it are different.  ’In one case it,               is produced from milk directly.  In the  other               two: cases, cream and curd are first  prepared               and these ’are then churned to obtain  butter.               The  preparation of cream or curd is  only  an               intermediate  process  in the  manufacture  of               butter  from milk.  Butter made from  Dahi  or               curd,  is  therefore  also  butter  made  from               milk."               We entirely agree with these observations. Reliance  is  then  placed  upon  a  ’decision  in  Hunt  v. Richardson(1)  in  support  of  the  argument  that  if  the standard prescribed was not maintained the appellant did not commit any offense, as there was no adulteration of milk fat With other products.  In the above case, by s. 6 of the Sale of ’Food and Drugs Act, 1875, " no person shall sell to  the prejudice of the purchaser any article of food which is  not of  the  nature,  substance,  and  quality  of  the  article demanded by the purchaser, under a penalty." By s. 4 of  the ,said?  Act, the Board of Agriculture were empowered to make regulations  for determining what deficiency in any  of  the normal constituents of genuine milk should for the  purposes of  the  Sale of Food and Drugs Acts  raise  a  presumption, until  the’  contrary  was proved, that  the  milk  was  not genuine.    In  exercise  of  their  power,  the  Board   of Agriculture  made  a ’regulation prescribing  that  where  a sample  of milk contained less than 3 per cent. of milk  fat it  was  to  be presumed that the milk was  not  genuine  by reason  of  the  abstraction therefrom of milk  fat  or  the addition thereto of water.  A dealer in milk sold pure  milk and  the  deficiency  in the milk fat was  not  due  to  any abstraction  from the milk or addition thereto, but  because of the’ herbage on which the cows were fed.  The court, by a majority, held that no offence was committed by the  dealer. The reason given for the decision is found at p. 452 and  it is,               " This section does not authorize the Board of               Agriculture to define what is milk, or to  fix               a  standard of the normal  constituents  below               which               (1)   [1916] 2 K.B. 446.                127

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

             996               an  article shall be deemed not to  be  milk,,               and  the  regulation providing  that  where  a               sample of milk contains less then 3 per  cent.               of  milk fat it shall be presumed,  until  the               contrary  is  proved,  not to  be  genuine  of               necessity implies that it may be proved to  be               genuine  although it contains less than 3  per               cent. if milk fat.  It is to be observed  that               s. 1 of the same Act of 1899, which deals with               the importation of adulterated or impoverished               milk,  provides  in  sub-s.  7  that  for  the               purposes of that section milk shall be  deemed               to  be adulterated or impoverished if  it  has               been mixed with any other substance, or if any               part of it has been abstracted so as in either               case  to affect injuriously its quality,  sub-               stance,  or nature.  This, I  think,  confirms               the  view implied in the regulation that  milk               which  has not been so treated although it  be               deficient in milk fat is none the less  deemed               to  be  milk for the purposes of s. 6  of  the               Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875."  It  is,  therefore,  obvious that  under  the  English  Act selling milk below a particular standard is not an  offence. The  gist  of  the offence is mixing  with  milk  any  other substance  or abstracting any part from it so as  to  affect injuriously  the quality, substance, or nature of the  milk. The regulation prescribing that milk,shall contain not  less than  3  per  cent. of milk fat  raises  only  a  rebuttable presumption,   and   the   dealer,   notwithstanding    such deficiency, can prove that the milk has not been adulterated or impoverished within the meaning of the said Act.  But  in the Indian Act selling butter below the prescribed  standard is  deemed  to  be adulteration.  If  the  standard  is  not maintained, the butter, by a fiction, becomes an adulterated food.   A  dealer in such butter cannot adduce  evidence  to prove  that notwithstanding the deficiency in the  standard, it is not adulterated. The conclusion we have arrived at is not only sup ported  by the plain words of the rule, but also carries out the  clear intention  of the Legislature.  The Act was passed  to  make provisions  for  the  prevention of  adulteration  of  food. Butter  is  a  favourite  edible  fat  and  is  consumed  in different ways by innumerable 997 persons  in this country.  As we have already  pointed  out, butter  is  prepared  in the  rural  areas  throughout  this country  by the indigenous process of churning soured  milk, whereas  only  in a few cities butter is  prepared  directly from milk.  The interpretation suggested by learned  counsel for the appellant, if accepted, would make the rule a  dead- letter,  for all practical purposes, and the object  of  the Legislature  would be defeated.  In our view, the  intention of the Legislature has been clearly expressed in the rule. We,  therefore,  hold that butter prepared from  curd  comes within  the  definition  of  " butter "  in  r.  A.11.05  of Appendix B to the Rules. The  second contention turns upon a question of  fact.   The High Court considered the entire evidence and accepting  the evidence of the Food Inspector and the Health Officer,  held that  the bottle sent to the Public Analyst was  the  sample seized from the appellant.  There are no permissible grounds for  allowing  the appellant to canvass the  correctness  of this finding.  We, therefore, accept the finding.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

The last contention is that the report of the Public Analyst is ambiguous and, therefore, the benefit of doubt should  be given  to  the  appellant.  What is stated is  that  in  the report  it  is stated that the butter  contained  19.57%  of moisture,  64.67%  of milk fat and 18.32%  of  foreign  fat, totalling  102.56% i.e., more than 100%.  It is,  therefore, argued  that the report on the face of it is  incorrect  and therefore  should  not be acted upon.  There is  an  obvious fallacy underlying this argument. 18.32 per cent. of foreign fat is not a percentage in relation to the milk but only  in relation  to  the  fat.. Out of the fat in  the  milk,.  the analyst  says that 18.32 per cent. is foreign fat.   In  his own  words, " The butter fat in the sample ’contains  18.32% foreign fat." If that be so, there is no mistake on the face of the report.  The report clearly indicates that the butter sold  by  the appellant was below  the  standard  prescribed under  the  rule.  If so, it follows that the  appellant  is guilty of the offence with which he was charged. 998 The  High  Court sentenced the accused to  undergo  rigorous imprisonment  for two months and also to pay a fine  of  Rs. 250/-.   We  agree  with the High  Court  that  the  offence committed  by  the  appellant is a  serious;  one  and  that ordinarily  the punishment should be deterrent.  In most  of the  cases  of this kind imprisonment would certainly  be  a suitable sentence.  But in this case,; there was a  conflict of  view  even,  in the Bombay High  Court  as  regards  the question  whether  butter  made from curd  would  be  butter within  the meaning of the rule.  Indeed, it was brought  to our  notice, that on April 16, 1960, the Central  Government made  another  rule amending rule A-11.05 by  inserting  the word  " curd " in the definition of butter and  the  amended definition.reads,  "  butter  means  the  product   prepared exclusively   from   milk,  cream  or.  curd   of   cow   or buffalo...........  This must have been made to clarify  the position  in  view  of the conflicting  decisions.   In  the circumstances,  we think that a sentence of fine would  meet the  ends, of justice in the present case.   We,  therefore, set aside the sentence of two months’ rigorous  imprisonment and a fine of Rs 250/- and instead sentence the appellant to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.