SUKHLAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revisionist Sukhlal has been convicted under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the revisionist was found selling adulterated cow milk at about 7-30 p. m. on 14-12-76 in Oral town. The Public Analyst's report disclosed that the fat content of the sample taken by the Food Inspector was 4.8% and the non-fatty solid content 6.1%- as against the prescribed 3.5% and 8.5% respectively. Both the courts below have found the prosecution story about the sale of milk established.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revisionist pressed only one point in revision. His contention was that the fat content being in excess of the prescribed standard, the 2.4% deficiency in the non-fatty solids should be ignored. Reliance was placed on Sultan Shah Vs. State, 1973 FAC 343 and Parsuram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1979 (II) FAC 89. In these cases it had undoubtedly been held that where fat contents are in excess mere shortage of non-fatty solids does not justify the conclusion that the milk was adulterated. The high fat content was held to show that water had not been added and the only inference was that either the cow had not been given proper food or the report of the analyst was erroneous. With great respect I am unable to agree with the view that excess of fat content would R.I. out adulteration on account of shortage in non-fatty solid contents. I respectfully concur with the view taken in Megh Singh Vs. State, 1979 (I) FAC 59, in which Bakshi, J. repelled the above contention. I might also cite the observations of the Supreme Court in M.V. Joshi Vs. M.U. Shimpi, 1975 (I) FAC 214 , which was a case of curd butter in which moisture content was above the prescribed limit :