Ajaib Singh vs The State of Punjab

A.D. Koshal, J.—On the 26th June, 1971 the petitioner was found carrying 18 liters of cow''s milk in a container for sale when Food Inspector Sat Pal P.W. obtained from him a sample of the commodity. When analysed by the public Analyst the sample was found to contain 4.9% milk-fat and 9.2% of non-fatty solids In additional to sucrose, the percentage of which was not specified. Holding the milk to be adulterated, the trial Court convicted the petitioner of an offence u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine, to rigorous imprisonment for two months.

Against the judgment of the trial Court which is dated the 4th of May, 1972, the petitioner instituted an appeal which was dismissed on the 30th May, 1972, by Shri Avtar Singh Gill, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. That is why the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

Conceding that sucrose is a form of sugar which is not found in milk and that the sample obtained by the Food Inspector from the petitioner was, therefore, adulterated even though it contained higher percentages of milk-fat and non-fatty solids than the minimum prescribed by the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the adulteration Is merely technical and that the petitioner should thus be let off with a very mild sentence. I find force in the contention, especially in view of the fact that the Public Analyst did not I specify the percentage of sucrose in the sample analysed by him. Such percentage may have been very low and in tact negligible in which case J it could not be said that the petitioner had substantially contravened the provisions of the Act. Again, sucrose is normally the main ingredient of sugar which is commonly available in the market and it would be reasonable to presume that the presence of sucrose in the sample arose from the addition of sugar to the milk which the petitioner was carrying. Now in recent yean the price of sugar available in the market has generally remained far above that of milk and, therefore, it cannot reasonably be held that the petitioner added sugar to the milk by way of a deliberate attempt to adulterate the milk and thereby to profiteer. Besides, sugar is not only non-injurious stuff but is also a nutrient so that the food value of the milk being carried by the petitioner for sale cannot be said to have been lowered. In this view of the matter I would hold that he is entitled to a very lenient view on the question of sentence. He has already served rigorous imprisonment for a fortnight which would more than meet the ends of justice as the sentence to be awarded to him for the technical offence brought home to him. Maintaining the conviction, therefore, I reduce the sentence accordingly. The fine imposed upon him is remitted in its entirety and if any part of it has been paid by him, the same shall be refunded to him.