GOPINATHAN NAIR Vs. PALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the complainant against acquittal. The accused were prosecuted by the complainant (Food Inspector, Kottayam Municipality) under S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (shortly stated the Act) for selling adulterated cow's milk. 700 milli litres of milk offered for sale by the accused's cooperative society was purchased by the complainant at 7-20 a.m. on 3-2-70 on payment of a price of 84 paise. It was then divided into three parts as required by the Rules and 16 drops of formalin were poured into each part and bottled. On analysis by the Public Analyst it was found that the milk contained 18% of added water. Milk fat found was 3.5% and milk solids not fat 6.9%. On further analysis by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, the result obtained was milk fat 5.0%, and milk solids not fat 8.2%. The Public Analyst as well as the Director of Central Food Laboratory have opined that the sample is adulterated. According to the Public Analyst the sample is adulterated, because it does not conform to the standard prescribed for cow's milk under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (shortly stated the Rules). The analyst is further of the opinion that the sample contained 18.0% of added water. The Director of Central Food Laboratory, on the other hand, has simply stated that the sample is "adulterated. He has not given any particular reason for his conclusion. According to the lower court, "the deterioration in quality may have been due to the fact that the analysis is after a period of 4 months". It is on this reasoning that the learned District Magistrate has acquitted the accused.

(2.) But in my view, without going into the question whether the variation found in the quality of the milk is due to the delay in analysing the sample or not the acquittal can be supported on another, more sobre ground. Both the report of the Public Analyst and the certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory can supply only the data relating to the analysis. The question whether the sample is adulterated has to be decided by the court on the data so supplied and in doing so, the data supplied by the Central Food Laboratory will have to be given precedence in accordance with S.13(3) of the Act. The court in forming its conclusion on the matter can even look into other evidence made available before court. On this point the Supreme Court in Ram Dayal v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi ( AIR 1970 SC 366 ) has observed:-

(3.) On behalf of the complainant it was argued that when the Rules say that a particular article of food is below the standard prescribed, the court cannot embark on an academic investigation about the quality of the stuff and say that it is not adulterated. Joshi v. Shimpi ( AIR 1961 SC 1494 ) was cited in support of this position. There it was held that: