BHONRILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 18th May, 1979, by which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, dated 20th September, 1978, by which, the petitioner was found guilty for the offence u/s. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, hereinafter, "the Act") and sentenced to 6 months' SI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months' SI.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of this case are that on 19th November,'76, Babulal Sharma, Food Inspector, found the petitioner selling milk in Lalkothi locality. He had a tin container containing nearly 10 kgs. of cow and buffalo milk. The Food Inspector suspected the milk to be adulterated After disclosing his identity, he purchased 66 mls. of milk from the accused-petitioner, and divided it in three equal parts. Each part was then filled in a dry and clean bottle, and 18 drops of formalin were added to each bottle. All the three bottles were then properly sealed. One bottle was delivered to the accused; and one bottle was sent to public analyst, for examination. After analysis, the public analyst found the milk to be adulterated. The said milk had contained 10% of added water. After obtaining due sanction from the District Magistrate, the petitioner was prosecuted in the court of CJM, Jaipur.

(3.) I do not agree with this argument. The petitioner was selling mixed cow and buffalo milk. Sample of it was taken and sent to public analyst for analysis. The opinion of the public analyst was that the said sample was adulterated. The milk was found containing 10% added water. It was below the standard laid down in the R. E. Rules. This is no argument that the water which was mixed in the milk, was not injurious to health. When something is added to a pure thing that pure thing becomes impure No doubt, in the present case, it was cow and buffalo milk. But even in the case of mixed milk, there is a standard prescribed by the rules, and if a food is found below the standard, it is an adulterated food, and it is prohibited for sale. If any person is found selling an adulterated food, he has certainly violated the provisions of S. 7 of the Act. For that offence, punishment is provided in S. 16 of the Act. When water is mixed in pure milk, it cannot be said that it was not injurious to health. Where does the purity remain when water is added to it ? Once the purity of water goes away, it becomes adulterated, and certainly it is injurious to health. I have no hesitation to say that addition of water to milk is certainly injurious to health, and it is not necessary for the public analyst to give opinion that the adulterated milk was injurious to health. It is for the court to judge all these things. When it is found that milk was adulterated and it was mixed with water certainly, it is injurious to health. It cannot be said that mixing water in pure milk would be beneficial to health, and it would improve health. So, the argument of Mr. Tikku has no substance. It has been clearly proved that the milk which was being sold by the petitioner and of which sample was taken from him, was found to be adulterated. The learned Magistrate has not committed any error in finding the petitioner guilty of the offence u/s. 7/16 of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge too has not committed any error in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upholding his conviction and the sentence. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, as there is no illegality in it.