MANSINGH AMARSINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by a seller of milk, (which he described as cow's milk) convicted for the second time under Section 16(1) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Awarded the minimum sentence of one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- with further simple imprisonment in default, the applicant went in appeal. The appellate Court upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- only, which is below the minimum prescribed by law, the ostensible reason being that "he was a poor man and it may be that he brought this milk from some one else and sold it without knowing that it was adulterated".

(2.) Whatever the merits of the conviction, the legal grounds, urged against which I shall examine presently, the reason given by the lower appellate Court for a lesser sentence is inadequate. Certainly, the appellate Court should examine the facts and see if the conviction is correct. But once the conviction is upheld and the law has provided a minimum sentence, really adequate reasons should be given for giving sub-minimum sentences. The mere possibility that the offender may have got the milk from another, is certainly not adequate. I have to leave it with bare mention, as there is no application before me by the State for the minimum sentence on the ground of inadequacy of the appellate Court's reasoning.

(3.) The broad facts are common ground. The appellant was going about within the Indore Municipal area soiling milk when he was stopped by the Municipal Food Inspector who paid for the samples, took them, divided and sealed them as prescribed by law, giving the vendor one of the samples, retaining one for a check up and sending the third for the analysis. The analyst's report was also submitted and it was found that the milk contained 5 per cent fat and 6.39 per cent non-fat solid, the rest being water. The standard prescribed for cow's milk by the statutory rules (vide Schedule II Rule 5) is "not less than 3.24 per cent fat and not less than 8.5 per cent solid other than fat." If it had been buffalo milk, it should be not less than 5 per cent fat and not less than 9 per cent non-fat solid. As cow's milk is slightly thinner than buffalo milk, both in respect of fat and non-fat solids and it is in evidence that when the Food Inspector stopped him, the applicant said that he was selling cow's milk, the lower Courts applied the standards for cow's milk which are loss exacting than for buffalo milk. As far as the fat contents went, there was no difficulty, it being within the prescribed limit of variation. But the non-fat solid content was about 25 per cent short of the minimum requirement of 8.5 per cent. These are the noncontroversial arithmetical (acts emerging from the analyst's report, the breach being the one defined in Section 2 (1) (1).