BANSILAL BABHUTRAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by a seller of milk who has been convicted Under Section 16 (l) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act: and in the view of at least one previous conviction for a similar offence, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2000/- with further imprisonment in default, for six months. The appeal having been dismissed, he has come up In revision alleging as ground of law that he was selling, neither pure cow's milk nor pure buffalo's milk but a mixture, for which no standard has been prescribed. The factual allegations are that though he had thirty seers of milk at his shop, it was not for sale and again, the data found by the public analyst are not worthy of credence. This application touches on one or two misunderstandings which seem to be common, it is therefore convenient to deal with the matter at some length so that subordinate Criminal Courts in the State dealing the cases may be under no confusion.

(2.) THE factual allegations can be disposed of briefly. The applicant's own account was that he sells ghee and not milk and he had brought the milk for extracting butter and riot for sale as such. The quantity was considerable and the evidence was that it was being actually offered, for sale. So there is nothing more to be said in the regard in revision. The second factual allegation is that the analyst's, data are unacceptable, the applicant does not say way. The lower courts have found what is clear on the face of the matter, that the analysis has been done properly. It is admitted that the Food-Inspector gave the applicant his sample of the milk preserved with formalin in a sealed container. It was open to the applicant to have asked for a second analysis; he has not done so, not has he given any reason why he did not avail of this opportunity for a second analysis. It has been pointed out that the fat content has been found by the analyst to be 7-2 per cent, in other words, higher than the one prescribed for pure buffalo's milk, so far, it is very credible. Why it happens at times that milk officered for sale contains, on the one hand, an exceptionally high fat percentage and on the other, a considerable shortage of non-fat solids, is an interesting question for which-different answers can be found; we are not concerned with it immediately. The non-fat solids were 8 per cent, in other words, one in nine lower than the percentage prescribed for cow's milk, and lower still (3 in 19) than the percentage prescribed for buffalo's milk, which to thicker in this regard. It cannot at all be urged that the shortage of one content can be made good by an excess of the other in whatever manner the latter excess might have been brought about.

(3.) THIS takes us to the ground most seriously canvassed, namely, that the applicant had indicated that he was selling neither cow's milk nor buffalo's milk pure, simple, but a mixture. The law not having prescribed any. standard for such a mixture, the prosecution should fail. This is over-ingenious and laboured and would normally have been dismissed with bare mention; but some time ago, the Allahabad High Court, sitting in Single Benctr, gave a ruling that in the absence of a standard prescribed for a mixture, there could be no prosecution for the sale of such a mixture, however watered. This ruling (Municipal Board, Kanpur v. Badloo AIR1960 All 504 , 1960 Crilj1056 ) has been overruled by the recent Full Bench ruling dated 15-5-1961 and reported in Prem Das v. State , AIR1961 All 590 , 1961 Crilj737.