MEGH SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R. I. and a A-5 fine of Rs. 1000/- by the 111 Additional Munsif Magistrate, Etawah. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo 4 months R. I. His conviction and sentence have been confirmed in appeal by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah. Hence this revision, which was admitted by me on the question of sentence only.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has however, argued this revision on merits. I have heard him. His sole contention is that according to the report of the Public Analyst, the sample which was taken from the applicant was deficient in non-fatty solid contents by about 18 per cent. There was no deficiency in fatty contents. As such, he has urged that the sample of cows milk taken from the applicant by the Food Inspector on 26th August, 1975 cannot be deemed to be adulterated and, therefore, no offence has been committed by the applicant punishable under the aforesaid Act.

(3.) THERE can be no doubt that milk is an article of food meant for human consump­tion and is thus covered by the definition under Section l(v) of the Act. Therefore, referring back to section 2 (i) (1) if the quality or purity of the articles falls below the prescribed standard it would be deemed to be adulterated. There are, however, certain items of food for which the Act prescribes a limit of variability. Such was not the case with milk. Therefore, in order to judge whether an article of food is adulterated or not, we have to fall back on the definition of 'adulteration' as laid down in section 2 (i) (1) of the Act. It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of status that when the language of the Act is clear and specific, we must give effect to it whatever may be its consequences, for the words of the statue speak of the intention of the Legislature. If it was intended by the Legislature that a diminution of percentage in the non-fatty solids in milk, for whatever cause it may be, was to be treated as an exception to absolve a person from penal consequence under the Prevention of Food Adultera­tion Act, there was nothing to deter the Legislature by prescribing limits of variability with regard to the existence of non-fatty solids. But no such excep­tions have been provided. It would be a different matter, if the report of the Public Analyst or the Director of the Central Drug Research Institute is not considered by the courts as satisfactory and no reliance is placed upon it. In that case the very basis of the analysis is set at naught and the result of the analysis falls to the ground. The report of the Public Analyst is evidence in the case under the provisions of the Act. The report of the Director, Central Drug Research Institute supersedes the report of the Public Analyst. The courts may come to the conclusion that either of these reports are not satisfactory and thus reject the same. But if the reports of the analysis are accepted as correct by the court, then the only criterion which has to be taken into consideration by a court in assessing the culpability of the individual is to see whether it conforms to the standard prescribed under the Appendix 'B' of the aforesaid Act. A court of law cannot read words in a statute which do not exist, it must give effect to the intention of the framers of the Act. The argument of inconvenience and hardship is a dangerous one and it is only admissible in construction where the meaning of the statute is obscure and there are alternative methods of con­struction. In my opinion, therefore, all that the court was required to see in the instant case was whether the ingredients of milk purchased from the applicant by the Food Inspector, as reported by the Public Analyst, was in conformity with the standard prescribed under the Act. If it was not, the offence was made out. It makes no difference at all whether the deficiency was in fat contents or in non-fatty solids. In either case the offence is complete. My above views are fortified by a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Hazard Singh (I) which lays down :