BALU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON June 14, 1976 about 6.30 a.m. the Food Inspector of Gulabpura Town visited the small restaurent of Bansi Luhar PW 2 for whom the petitioner Balu had brought 7 or 8 Kgs. of mixed cow and buffalo's milk for sale. The Food Inspector inspected the milk brought, by the petitioner and the petitioner told the Food Inspector that it was mixed cow and buffalo's milk and he had brought it for sale. Suspecting that the milk was adulterated, the Food Inspector, with a view to take sample of the milk from the petitioner to send the same for analysis to the Public Analyst, gave notice Ex. P 1 in Form VI to the petitioner and bought 660 mlg. of that milk from the petitioner for 90 paise. The statutory formalities under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, here in after 'the P.F.A. Act') were complied with and one of the three sealed bottles were sent to the Public Analyst, Bhilwara from whom the report was received that the sample of mixed milk (buffalo and cow) was adulterated as it contained about 33% added water. Consequently, a prosecution ensued and after trial, the Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the P.F.A. Act and resulted with simple imprisonment for a term of six months and with a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of the payment thereof simple imprisonment for a further term of six months. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Sessions, Bhilwara but his appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara on November 21, 1979. He has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) WIDE -ranging grounds have been taken by the petitioner in his revision for attacking the conviction recorded by the Court below, but during the course of arguments Mr. M.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, only canvassed limited points for my consideration. He urged that the report Ex. P 5 of the Public Analyst, Bhilwara was per se erroneous and wrong because when the fat -content, on analysis, has come out to be in the sample sent to him by the Food Inspector as 8.4% and exceeds the prescribed standard, it could not be found by him that the sample contained about 30% added water and that the milk was adulterated. It was also urged that it was the month pf June when the sample was taken, by the Food Inspector and apart from the health of the cattle, seasonal variation also affect both the quantity and quality of the milk produced by cow or buffalo and consequently affect not -fatty solids content percentage in the milk. Last was the usual prayer for clemency. Mr. Singhvi relied upon a Single Bench decision of this Court in Paras Ram v. State of Rajasthan 1978(3) R. Cr. C. 324 and a Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Puran Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Ors. 1978 F.A.J. 168 in support of his contentions. He also referred to the percentage of chief constituents generally found in an average sample of milk as mentioned by Eckles, Combs and Macy in their book 'Milk Products' prepared for the use of Agriculture College students (February, 1951 -Fourth Edition) at page 23 of the book. He also referred to page 62 of the said book to support his argument about seasonal variations in solids -non -fat in milk.

(3.) SO far as the decision of Allahabad High Court in Puran Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (1978 F.A.J. 168) is concerned, suffice it to state that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad v. State of West Bengal : 1972CriLJ1309 ) have clearly said that if the report of the Public Analyst was not satisfactory, it was open to the petitioner to have made an application for his sample to be examined by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13 of the PFA Act and in the absence of any such application, the report of the Public Analyst is final. The same view was taken by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram : 1967CriLJ939 ). The Public Analyst has clearly stated in his report that the sample of the mixed milk sent to him contained about 33% added water. In Kisan Trimback Kothule and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (1976 Cr. LR (SC) 541, their Lordships of the Supreme Court did not agree with the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant in that case that addition of water to milk did not amount to adulteration.