STATE Vs. GANPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS State appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment, dated February 14, 1979, of learned Sessions Judge, Tonk.

(2.) THE prosecution story in nut-shell is that on November, 27, 1976, PW. 1 Kutubuddin, the Food Inspector, saw the accused-respondent carrying milk for sale. After having disclosed his identity, he checked the accused-res-pondent. THE Food Inspector then served him a notice and purchased 660 ml. of milk for Rs, 1/12 paise. THE milk was divided into three parts. Each part was then filled in a dry and clean bottle. After having added 18 drops of formaline to each of the three bottles containing milk in the presence of the accused-respondent, the three bottles were corked and sealed. A memorandum, containing the details of the proceeding conducted by the Food Inspector, was prepared and the same was marked Ex. P/4. It bears the signatures of the Food Inspector as also of the two attesting witnesses, Devkinandan and Azizuddin. It also bears the signature of the accused respondent Ganpat. One of the sample bottles was given to the accused-respondent, and the other was sent to the Public Analyt, Jaipur, along with the specimen of the seal impression. THE form containing specimen seal in Ex. P/4 was also sent. THE third bottle was retained by the Food Inspector. THE sealed bottle was received by the Public Analyst on 1st December, 1976. THE Public Analyst received the bottle duly sealed and the seal was noticed by him to be intact, as shown in the memorandum. An endorsement to that effect was made by the Public Analyst. He analysed the contents of the bottle and declared the result as under: - Fat contents 6. 4% Solids non fat 7. 55% In the opinion of the Public Analyst the sample of the milk was adulterated as it contained about 11% of added water.

(3.) THE Act authorises the Central Government to constitute a committee to advise the Central Government and the State Government on matter arising out of the administration of the Act and to carry out the other functions assigned to it under the Act. Under sec. 23 (i) (b) of the Act the Central Government may after consultation with the committee and subject to the conditions of previous publication make rules to define the standards of quality for, and fixing the limits of variability permissible in respect of any article of food. It is in exercise of this power that in Appendix I clause A. ll. Ol. ll of the P. F. A. rules, 1965, the standard of minimum percentage of milk fat and milk solid non-fat for cow's milk in various parts of the country his been prescribed. As per this minimum percentage of the milk fat and milk solid non fat for cow's milk in Rajasthan is 3. 5 and 8. 5 respectively. Any person who sells milk which is not of this quality contiavenes the provisions of the Act and thereby he commits an offence. If the solids other than fat or fats are less than the prescribed minimum, the sample of the milk would be taken to be adulterated within the meaning of sec. 2 (i) (l) of the Act, regardless of the fact that the total percentage of solids other than fat and fats equal or exceed the total percentage of the two ingredients put together. When the standard of quality or purity has been prescribed under a statute for an article of food, it is not within the scope and province of the court of law to question the reasonableness or correctness of the standard so prescribed. THE Act has not made a distinction between the cases on the basis of the degree of adulteration. THE offence is punishable whether the adul-teration is greater or small.