DALIP SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's conviction and sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1,000/- as fine under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated cow's milk has been maintained on appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The petitioner has come up in revision.

(2.) Shri Gyani, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the veracity of the evidence with regard to the purchase of the milk by the Food Inspector and its being sealed into three samples in accordance with the rules. Darshan Singh, one of the two non-official witnesses who had been associated during the proceedings, had been examined at the trial and had failed to support the prosecution. He had been declared hostile at the request of the Food Inspector. The Food Inspector Shri M.P. Singh, had, however, deposed on oath to the prosecution story at the trial. According to the Supreme Court ruling in Babu Lal Hargobind Das v. The State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 1969 decided on 19th March, 1971, there is no rule of law which requires that the evidence of the Food Inspector should be corroborated before it can be accepted. He is not an accomplice and documents prepared by him need not be proved like a will by examining an attesting witness. The evidence of Food Inspector alone, if believed, can be relied upon for proving that the samples were taken in accordance with the requirements of law. The circumstances in each case will determine the weight to be given or the value to be attached to be the testimony of the Food Inspector. Both the Courts below have relied upon the Food Inspector's testimony and it is unnecessary for me to enter into a third reappraisal of its value or weight.

(3.) The public Analyst's report, however, shows that the overall deficiency of fats and non-fatty solids was not much. The sample analysed showed a fat content of 4.6 per cent as against the prescribed minimum of the (a) PER CENT. The adulteration of milk generally consists of the extraction of facts therefrom the deficiency in the present case was found to be in the non-fatty solids which were found to be 7.4 per cent as against the prescribed minimum of 8.5 per cent. There was therefore an averall deficiency of 0.50 per cent in the fatty and non-fatty contents of the milk. Under almost similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court had followed the Supreme Court ruling on Malwa Co-operative Milk Union Limited v. Bihari Lal, Criminal Appeals Nos. 235-236 of 1964 decided on 14th August, 1967, to maintain an order of acquittal. The Division Bench ruling under reference was in the case of the Municipal Committee of Amritsar v. Karam Singh,1971 PunLR 846. In the Supreme Court ruling in Bihari Lal's case, an overall deficiency of 0.4 per cent had been ignored. We have also to make some allowance for the fact that some inaccuracies can creep into the analysis carried out by the Public Analyst.