DALICHAND Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the original accused against their conviction under section 7(a) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) with Rule 44(b) read with Rule 7(5) and section 16(1)(a)(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Each of them was sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for two months. That sentence was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad.

(2.) According to the case of the prosecution, 1st petitioner happened to be owner of Shri. Sham Dairy and the 2nd petitioner was a servant engaged by him. On September 26, 1976 at about 9 a.m., Food Inspector visited the shop and collected a sample of milk. The sample was divided in three parts and according to the Food Inspector panchanama was made. After observing the formalities prescribed by law, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst, Exh. 23, shows the total solids was 10.7% milk fat was 4.6% and solids not fat was 5.1%. Below the tabulation the Public Analyst while giving his opinion says that the sample contains 32.2 added water and does not conform to the standards of Buffalo Milk.

(3.) Mr. Agarwal appearing on behalf of the accused makes out a case that there is breach of Rule 17 as much the certificate is defective and the offence could not be taken to be falling under section 2(i)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but that it would be under section 2(i)(l) of that Act. If his first contention is accepted the conviction will have to be quashed. If the second contention is to be accepted, then it would be in the discretion of this Court to give appropriate punishment.