AZAD AHMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Azad Ahmed was tried in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, for an offence under Section 16(l)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The charge against him was that, on 12.4.1974, he had exposed for sale milk, consisting of cow's milk and buffalo's milk mixed together in equal proportion, which, on analysis, did not conform to the prescribed standard and was adulterated. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the milk sold contained 4.1% fatty solids and 7.4% non -fatty solids, compared to 4.5% fatty solids and 8.5% non -fatty solids prescribed for mixed milk. Accordingly, he convicted the applicant of the offence with which he was charged and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default, to undergo further R.I. for ten months. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow, took the view that the standards prescribed for buffalo milk would apply and, so judged, the milk sold should have contained 6.0% fatty solids and 9.0% non -fatty solids as against 4.1% fatty solids and 7.4% non -fatty solids found in it. On this reasoning, he upheld the conviction and the sentence imposed on the applicant by the Magistrate. Hence this revision.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the applicant was prosecuted on the ground that he had not maintained the standards prescribed for mixed milk. But as a matter of fact no standard had been prescribed for such milk on the relevant date, and, as such, the courts below were not right in convicting him. He particularly relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in M. V. Krishnan Nambissan v. State of Kerala (AIR 1966 SC 1676): (1966 Cri LJ -1347).

(3.) IT is true that in its present form Rule A.ll.01.11 prescribes standard of purity for mixed milk, but it was not there on 12.4.1974, when the applicant exposed the milk for sale. It came to occupy the field at a later date. The entry as regards 'mixed milk' found its way into Rule A.ll.01.11. by virtue of notification No. GSR 205 dated 13.2.1974 and came into force from 13.5.1974. It seems that this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate. Whatever the reason, it is clear that the learned Magistrate was not justified in relying on the prescribed standard for mixed milk, which was not effective on the relevant date. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge perhaps noticed this infirmity in the judgment of the learned Magistrate, although he does not say so. But the fact remains that he preferred his own reasoning for upholding the decision of the Magistrate. He referred to Note (i) appended at the end of Rule A.ll.01.11 and observed: -