Being in possession of false weights or mea

sures.

266. Whoever is in possession of any instrument for weighing, or of any weight, or of any measure of length or capacity, which he knows to be false, and intending that the same may be fraudulently used, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. 267. Whoever makes, sells, or disposes of, any instrument for weighing, or any weight, or any measure of length or capacity, which he knows to be false, in order that the same may be used as true, or knowing that the same is likely to be used as true, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Making or selling false weights

or measures.

CHAPTER XIV.

OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE, DECENCY, AND MORALS.

For commentary on this chapter, see Part II., Chapter VIII., and special references to the following sections.

268. A PERSON is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act, or is guilty of an illegal omission, Public nuisance. which causes any common injury, danger, or annoyance, to the public or to the people in general who dwell, or occupy property, in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger, or annoyance, to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.

A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.

For commentary on this section, see Part II., §§ 383-392.

act

Negligent likely to spread

infection of any disease dangerous

269. Whoever unlawfully, or negligently, does any act which is, and which he knows, or has reason to believe, to be likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. For commentary on ss. 269 and 270, see Part II., §§ 393—395.

to life.

Malignant act likely to spread infection of any disease dangerous to life.

270. Whoever malignantly does any act which is, and which he knows, or has reason to believe, to be likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Disobedience to a quarantine rule.

271. Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule made and promulgated by the Government of India, or by any Government, for putting any vessel into a state of quarantine, or for regulating the intercourse of vessels in a state of quarantine with the shore or with other vessels, or for regulating the intercourse between places where an infectious disease prevails and other places, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

Commentary.

Act I. of 1870 (Quarantine provides for the promulgation by the Government of India and the Local Government of quarantine rules, which are to be published, and taken as rules made and promulgated under s. 271.

food or drink which

is intended for sale.

272. Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or Adulteration of drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Sale of noxious food or drink.

Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing, or having reason to believe, that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Commentary.

The adulteration mentioned in the two preceding sections must be such as renders it injurious to health. Mixing water with milk, sloe

leaves with tea, or chicory with coffee, would not be punishable. It would be otherwise with such compounds as beer doctored with strychnine, spirits mixed with vitriol, cakes coated with red lead, and such like poisonous compounds. Where the person charged is himself the party who has directed the adulteration, the fact that the article has been sold, or was manufactured for sale, will be sufficient to warrant a conviction. On the other hand, where the party is merely the vendor of that which has been manufactured by others, some further evidence will be necessary, in order to show that he knew, not only that there was some adulteration, but also what was the extent and probable consequence of that adulteration. It must be remembered that in most cases there are some recognized modes of adulterating particular articles of food, which are perfectly well known to the trade, and, therefore, where it is shown that the vendor knew that the article was in fact adulterated, it will in most cases be no very unsafe presumption that he had reason to know what the character of the adulteration was. The knowledge of the adulteration will seldom be capable of direct proof. Where the article is, in fact, adulterated, and where it is shown that the vendor purchased it at a price below that for which the genuine article could be procured, such knowledge may safely be inferred. The presumption would be strengthened if it could be shown that the vendor had several articles of the same species on hand, at different prices, some adulterated and some not, or adulterated to different degrees.

Under an English statute, somewhat similar to the above, it has been held that the offence is only committed by the sale of an article which, at the time of sale, professes to be either food or drink. An article such as baking powder, which is not itself food, though used in the preparation of food, is not within the Act. (James v. Jones [1894], 1 Q. B., 304.)

Little difficulty can ever be felt where the bad quality of the article arises, not from any adulteration which might possibly escape notice, but from its own intrinsic defects. As, for instance, where unsound meat is sold. And, even though the defect has escaped the notice of the purchaser, it must be remembered that the seller has generally such an accurate knowledge of the qualities of his ware, and of the previous history of each particular article, as renders it very unlikely that he could be ignorant of any fault of a glaring character.

On a conviction under ss. 272 to 275 inclusive, the Court may order the food, drink, drug, or medical preparation, in respect of which the conviction was had, to be destroyed. (Cr. P. C., s. 521.)

Adulteration of

drugs.

274. Whoever adulterates any drug, or medical preparation, in such a manner as to lessen the efficacy, or change the operation of such drug or medical preparation, or to make it noxious, intending that it shall be sold or used for, or knowing it to be likely that it will be sold or used for, any medicinal purpose, as if it had not undergone such adulteration, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or

with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Sale of adulterated drugs.

275. Whoever, knowing any drug or medical preparation to have been adulterated in such a manner as to lessen its efficacy, to change its operation, or to render it noxious, sells the same, or offers or exposes it for sale, or issues it from any dispensary for medicinal purposes as unadulterated, or causes it to be used for medicinal purposes by any person not knowing of the adulteration, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Commentary.

Under this and the previous section it is not necessary to show that the drug was so adulterated as to render it noxious to life. It is sufficient if its efficacy is lessened. The necessity for this enactment is obvious enough. All drugs are of a recognized average strength, and prescriptions are made up on the understanding that they possess such strength. If, however, the drug which a physician prescribes proves to be only half the strength on which he calculated it may prove wholly useless, and death may ensue before the error is remedied. The act only speaks of the efficacy of the drug being lessened, or its operation changed. It would, however, be necessary to show that the difference in the drug was of so considerable a character as to make an appreciable and important change in its character and effect. The use of the word “adulteration” implies the mixture of some foreign element. And, therefore, a merely inferior quality of the same medicine will not amount to an adulteration. For instance, there are many different sorts of cod liver oil, and the same oil prepared in different ways may produce different degrees of effect. But if an apothecary, being ordered to supply a quart of cod liver oil for a person in consumption, were to send a quart of the most inferior oil of that description, this would not be an act indictable under either section, provided the oil, however inferior in quality, was genuine of its kind.

It will be observed that the essence of the offence consists, not so much in the adulteration, as in the passing the article off as unadulterated. Anyone who chooses may mix anything he likes with any medicine, but he must not sell it as if it was unadulterated, nor for the purpose of being sold as unadulterated. This must, I imagine, be taken as the meaning of the words "knowing it to be likely that it will be sold as if it had not undergone such adulteration." If a druggist were to sell a compounded medicine to an apothecary, com. municating exactly its real nature to him, he could not be rendered criminally answerable because the apothecary sold it again as genuine, even though his knowledge of the apothecary's morals made it very

probable that such might be the result. But it would be very different if it could be shown that he supplied the spurious commodity, by mutual understanding, for the purpose of being issued to the world as something different.

or preparation.

276. Whoever knowingly sells, or offers or exposes for Sale of any drug sale, or issues from a dispensary for medias a different drug cinal purposes, any drug or medicinal preparation as a different drug or medical preparation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Commentary.

The offence constituted by this section does not involve the idea of any adulteration, or inferiority, in the substituted medicine. It is sufficient that it is not in fact what it purports to be. If a chemist were to discover a drug which he considered to be just as effective as quinine, and which could be procured for half the price, he would not be justified in selling it as quinine, even though it answered precisely the same purpose. The fraud consists, not in the injury done, but in the false pretence by which persons, who suppose that they are using one medicine, are forced to use another against their will. (Knight v. Bowers, 14 Q. B. D., 845.)

277. Whoever voluntarily corrupts, or fouls, the water Fouling the of any public spring or reservoir, so as to water of public render it less fit for the purpose for which spring or reservoir. it is ordinarily used, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Commentary.

This section does not apply to a public river (Empress v. Halodhur, 2 Cal., 383), or to a continuous stream of water running along the bed of a river. (Reg. v. Vetti Chokkan, 4 Mad., 229.) Nor to mere bathing in a tank, not set apart by any lawful order for bathing purposes. (Mad. H. C. Pro., 13th December, 1878; S. C., Weir, 72 [96] .)

The Local Government may invest any Bench of Magistrates, invested with the power of a Magistrate of the 2nd or 3rd class, with power to try summarily all or any of the offences coming under ss. 277, 278, 279, 285, 286, 289, 290, 292, 293, 294, 323, 334, 336, 341, 352, 426, and 447, offences against Municipal Acts and the Conservancy Clauses of Police Acts which are punishable only with fine, or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, also abetment of, or attempt to commit, any of the foregoing offences, when such attempt is a crime. (Crim. P. C., s. 261.)