NARMADA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is directed against the judgment of conviction and order dated 18.1.1994 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1992, whereby he dismissed the appeal affirming the conviction and sentence of the applicant as passed by the trial Magistrate.

(2.) ON 9.8.1991 the complainant Food Inspector Hardayal Dubey (PW -1) purchased 600 ml. of goat milk from the applicant for public analyst after notice and a proper receipt, Ex.P -5, and sent a sample to the Public Analyst for report. The Public Analyst vide his report, Ex.P -10, found that the sample of milk contained 3% fat and 7.1% solid non fat and the same was not conformed to the prescribed standard of non solid fat to 9.0%. The complainant after obtaining the sanction for prosecution, Ex.P -11, filed prosecution report against the applicant before Special Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate on consideration of the evidence convicted the applicant under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default to undergo S.I. for further two months.

(3.) THE contention of Shri Gambhir that no standard of purity of goat milk is prescribed under the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is fallacious. In Apendix B Item No. A.11.01.11, of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the standards of purity for different classes of milk are laid down in the table. As per the table the standard of purify of goat milk in the State of Madhya Pradesh, is 3.0% fat and 9.0% solid non fat. It is obvious from the Analyst report Ex.P -10, that fat contained found in the sample milk was to the prescribed standard and non solid fat contained was below the prescribed standard. In this connection it is well settled that if the fat content in the milk sold is found to the prescribed that leads to an inference that no water is added to the milk and if the non solid fat content is found below the prescribed standard that warrants the inference that either the cow in question was not given a proper feeding or that the report of the Public Analyst was erroneous. Reference may be made in the case of Sultan Shah Vs. State of U.P. 1973 Cri.LJ. 1413.