PAPPU SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Sharma, J. This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 28-3-1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 170 of 1996, whereby he dismissed the same and confirmed the judgment and order, dated 20-11-19% passed by the 1st Addl. C. J. M. Agra who had convicted the present accused- revisionist of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month.

(2.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(3.) IN the present case, the milk was said to be mixed milk and in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, Appendix-B, Entry A. 11. 01. 11 provided for mixed milk, the minimum percentage of milk fat as 4. 5% and of milk solids non-fatty as 8. 5. %. As against this prescribed standard, the report of the public analyst in the present case showed that he found 5. 4% milk fat (as against 4. 5% minimum as provided in the standard, though the non-fatty solids were found to be 7. 7%. There is a variation in the case of non- fatty solids on the lower side as per the report of the public analyst but it is difficult to extract from mixed milk non-fatty milk solids while leaving the milk fat surplus beyond the prescribed standard. IN the normal course, the effort is to take out milk fat from the milk so that it could be sold away for profit. When the milk fat has been left intact to the extent that it v/as found surplus, it is difficult to believe that non-fatty solids will be extracted from the milk. I am fully inclined to follow the authority of Duli Chand v. State ofu. P. in the present case and held the report of the public analyst to be doubtful.