RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant claimed that since the milk he sold was that of a she-camel he cannot be prosecuted and convicted under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court accepted his claim and acquitted him on the premise that no standard has been fixed under the Act for such milk. But the High Court, after holding that camel's milk could not be sold for human consumption, further held that the milk sold was not shown to be camel's milk at all. Nonetheless, learned single Judge of the High Court, on the appeal preferred by the State, convicted the appellant under S. 16(1) of the Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

(2.) Shri Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant seemed to be more concerned with that part of the judgment by which the High Court declared that camel's milk cannot be sold for human consumption. Learned counsel expressed the apprehension that the above view of the High Court would affect the people of the State of Rajasthan by and large as many of them habitually consume camel's milk.

(3.) Now it is a 22 year old story as the Food Inspector had purchased milk from the appellant on 9-10-1978. He took sample therewith on the spot. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the sample was examined and found to contain 25% of added water and that the milk fat was 4.1% and the milk solid non-fat was 6.74%. After the prosecution evidence was completed in the trial Court appellant offered himself to be examined as a witness. In his evidence he did not dispute the fact that Food Inspector purchased milk from him nor the stand of the Food Inspector that sampling was done in his presence. However, appellant took the stand that it was milk of camel which was edible and that he did not add water to it. His defence was that no standard was fixed for camel's milk and hence he is not liable to be convicted on the strength of the report of the Public Analyst.