LALLU RAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai, hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order. Very briefly stated the prosecution case is that the Food Inspector had purchased a sample of mixed milk of cow and goat at about 8-30 AM. on 19th Dec., 1977 from the accused-applicant in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst Lucknow whose report disclosed that the sample was deficient in fat contents by 18% and non-fatty solids by 26%. The sample had been judged by from the standard of mixed milk. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that there was no standard prescribed for mixture of cow and goat milk on the date when the applicant in question has been convicted. It was as late as 31st Jan., 1979 when the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was amended and in item No. A.11.01.11 of appendix 'B' mixed milk including in the Act according to which mixture of buffalo, cow, goat and sheep's milk was prescribed and its standard was designated. The learned counsel submits that this amendment would not be applicable to the present case wherein the incident had taken place in the year 1977. In support of his contention reliance is placed upon a decision of this court reported in 1978(II)All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases, 297 (Azad Ahmad Vs. The State) wherein this Court has held "that if no standard has been prescribed, the prosecution cannot be sustained. It is not permissible by inference to read in the rules something which is not there...........The revision petition succeeds.............The conviction and sentence imposed upon the applicant are set aside." This case fully supports the submission made by the applicant's counsel. I am in fully agreement with the view expressed therein. In my opinion, therefore, the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence awarded thereunder are illegal and set aside.