NANAK SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NANAK Singh was convicted under section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1.000. His appeal was also dismissed by the Additional Session Judge, Ludhiana, by order dated 12th October 1970 and he has now come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) A sample of cow -milk was purchased from the petitioner by Dalbara Singh, Food Inspector, Municipal Committee, Raikot, on 23rd October, 1969 after the service of due notice and the milk was then put into three dry and clean bottles in equal parts. The Food Inspector then added formalin to the bottles and stoppered and sealed them. Of those, one was given to the petitioner, another was sent to the Public Analyst and the third was retained by the Food Inspector. On receipt of the report from the Public Analyst that the milk was adulterated, a complaint was filed against the accused. The only argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the deficiency of milk solids other than fat was merely marginal and negligible and the petitioner was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. Reliance in support of this argument is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Malwa Co -operative Milk Union Ltd. v. Behari Lal CA Nos. 235, 236 of 1964, Civil Appeals Nos. 235 -36 of 1964 decided on 14th August, 1967. In the above case it was found that there was a sight deficiency in solids other than fat, but the fat contents of the sample were higher than the minimum required under the Jaw. Considering that the analyst may not always be able to isolate the fat contents so successfully as not to leave room for a slight variation and also keeping in view the fact that what was generally extracted was cream and not other solids, the Supreme Court considered the variation as borderline in that case. The following observation may be read with advantage:

(3.) THE ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court was considered by the Delhi High Court in Municipal Co -operation of Delhi and another v. Om Parkash : 1970 Cri. L. J. 1047, and S. Rangarajan, J, after referring to certain passage from an article by S. N. Mitra of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, and from the book entitled "The Chemical Analysis of Foods and Food products" by Morris B. Jacobs, made the following observations: