CHITTUR THATHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY Vs. SHAHUL HAMEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Justice Mr. Abdul Gafoor referred this appeal to the Division Bench to consider the question regarding the nature of compliance of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'), disagreeing with the views expressed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.A.No. 288/1985. The sample of milk taken from the first respondent was found to be not according to the prescribed standards. Ext.C-1 analysis report from the Central Food Laboratory, Pune, shows that the sample contained 3.1% of milk fat and 5.2% of milk solids other than fat. As per Entry A.11.01.11, of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, (for short the Rules') cow milk should contain a minimum of 3.5% of milk fat and 8.5% of milk solids other than fat. Therefore, admittedly, the milk sold by the accused was not upto the standards prescribed.

(2.) The learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Act and Rule 44(b) of the Rules. The learned Sessions Judge, in appeal, acquitted the accused on three grounds. The learned Single Judge has found that the acquittal of the accused on two grounds was incorrect and not justified. Those findings have become final and are not challenged before us. To under stand the controversy, we quote Section 13(1)&(2)as follows;

(3.) We quote below the order of reference: