STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. AJAIB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned trial Magistrate has acquitted the respondent on the ground that the fat content of the impugned milk sample was more and milk -solids not fats were less than those prescribed by the statute.

(2.) WE might observe that as against 4% - the statutory requirement of fat contents - the sample of milk contained 4.5%, and as against the minimum milk solids not fat contents to the extent of 8.5%, the sample contained this item at 7.5%. In other words, the fat content, was certainly more but the milk solids not fats were slightly deficient. The learned trial Magistrate relied upon Sultan v. The State of Haryana, 1981 (II) F.A.C. 116, for acquitting the respondent but that view has been overruled by a subsequent Division Bench of this Court in The State of Haryana v. Harpat, Cr. A. No. 571 of 1980 decided on 3.3.1982. In the circumstances we allow this appeal, set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Magistrate and hold the respondent guilty under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In view of the marginal nature of the deficiency, we order the respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment of six weeks. Appeal allowed.