BHAGWATI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act; and sentenced to 6 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- by the Judicial Magistrate, Ballia. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Ballia. Hecne this revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders and the record of the case.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the 'Pera' in the question was made out of khoya and 'sugar'. The standard for 'khoya' nasi been prescribed and a minimum of 5 percent of milk fat is required under the U. P. Pure Food Rules, 1952. The report of the Public Analyst, detailed above, to the effect that the milk fat contents were less than the permissible minimum limit of 5 percent prescribed under the U. P. Pure Food Rules, 1952 has not been challenged. Under the U. P. Pure Food Act, 1950, 'Food' means any article of food or drink.................. used for human consumption including any substance which is ordinarily mixed in the preparation of Food. Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 also Food included any article used as food or drink other than drugs and water for human consumption, as also any article which is used in the composition or preparation of human food. Even after the Amendment of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by Act no. 34 of 1976, the same definition of 'food' has been given. There can be no doubt that 'khoya' is prepared out of the 'milk' and 'pera' is made out of 'khoya' and 'sugar'. For khoya, a standard has been prescribed which requires a minimum milk fat of 5 per cent. Therefore, when specimen of 'pera' is taken as a sample for analysis, it must contain the minimum amount of milk fat as prescribed under the Rules. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the milk fat contents was only 1.1%. Therefore, the sample in question was clearly adulterated.