STATE OF KERALA Vs. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI VASUDEVAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is from the acquittal of the respondent by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Attingal, of an offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

(2.) ON June 12, 1972, the respondent sold to the Food Inspector of the Elakamon Panchayat, P. W. 1, 660 m. 1. of cow milk. After complying with the formalities prescribed by law and adding the necessary preservative the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. He received it on June 15, and after analysis issued the report, Ext. P/5, on June 19, 1072, declaring the result as follows: Milk fat. . . 4. 8% Milk Solids-non-fat. . . 7. 7% Starch and Sugar. . . Absent, and Freezing point (Hortvet's method ). . . 0. 48 C. and expressing his opinion thus: The said sample does not conform to the standards prescribed for cow's milk under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and is therefore adulterated. The sample contains not less than nine per cent (9. 0%) of added water, as calculated from the freezing point (Hortvet's method ). The percentage of added water has been calculated on the basis of the fact that the freezing point of genuine cow's milk is 0. 53 C. After receipt of the report P. W. 1 filed the complaint on September 5. 1972, Besides P. W. 1, an attestor in the memorandum prepared by him at the time of purchase, P. W. 3, also gave evidence about the sale of milk by the respondent. The Magistrate found that the sale of milk as alleged was proved but acquitted the respondent holding that the percentage of added water in the sample was negligible.

(3.) IT is sufficiently proved in this case by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which is reliable, that the res-pendent sold '660 m. l. of milk to P. W. 1 as alleged, by the prosecution and by the report of the Analyst that that milk was adulterated as it did not conform to the standard. Therefore unless it is found that the variation of the standard was negligible and so could be ignored, conviction has to follow.