SUJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Sujan Singh was convicted under section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the trial Magistrate on 26th November, 1934, and a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 1000/- was imposed upon him. The petitioner preferred appeal against this decision which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. on 15th March, 1985. The instant revision has been filed by Sujan Singh against the said judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that a sample of separated milk was taken by the Government Food Inspector after observing usual formalities and the same was found to be adulterated on the basis of sub-standard. milk solids not fat being deficient by 3.45 per cent. The complaint mentions the concerned food article as separated milk and similar mention has been made in form VI-notice, Exhibit P.A. receipt. Exhibit P.B. and spot memo, Exhibit P.C., so much so that the report of the Public Analyst, Exhibit P.D., also mentions that a sample of 'separated milk' was analysed. Separated milk is not covered by item A. 11.01.11 of Appendix 'B' of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The said item provides standards for different classes and designations of milk, such as, buffalo milk, cow milk, goat or sheep milk, mixed milk, standardised milk, recombined milk, toned milk, double toned milk and skimmed milk. It does not contain the term separated milk. It seems to be the common case that the Rules do not prescribe any separate standard for separated milk. That being so, it is plain that under the existing provisions there is no yardstick. by which to judge the purity or otherwise of the product taken from the petitioner and in the absence of prescribed standard no conviction is possible, seems to be manifest both on principle and precedent. S. S. Sandhawalia, C. J. so held, in Lekh Raj v. The State, 1980 (II) All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases, 166 while dealing with food article 'fruit cream', for which no standard was. prescribed.

(3.) AS a result of what is stated above, this revision is allowed, conviction and sentence of petitioner Sujan Singh are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge-against him. The amount of fine 199. if realised, be refunded.