Mohinder Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Grewal, J. (Oral)

This petition is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, dated 10th February, 1993 whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak dated 20th May, 1992, convicting the petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, was dismissed.

In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that on 2431988 Natha Singh. Food Inspector, along with Dr. D.K. Sharma, was present near old Gohana Bus Stand at Rohtak for the purpose of taking sample of food. At abut 9 a.m. the petitioner came there with a drum containing 25 litres of cow''s milk meant for sale. After disclosing his identity the Food Inspector served notice on the petitioner informing him about his intention to take sample of milk for analysis. After stirring the whole milk properly 750 ml. of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the petitioner on payment of Rs. 3.75 paise against receipt. The milk so purchased was divided into three equal parts and was transfered into three dry and clean bottles 20 drops of formalin were added to each bottle and the same were stoppered, labelled and sealed in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Spot memo was prepared. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh for analysis whereas the other two parts were deposited with the Local Health Authority. Report of the Public Analyst, reveals that the milk solids not fat were deficient to the extent of 32 percent of the minimum prescribed standard for the cow''s milk. The plea taken by the petitioner in his defence was that the milk was not meant for sale; that the Food Inspector was not authorised to take sample. In his defence he produced copy of the Gazette notification as well as invitation card for marriage. After trial the petitioner was convicted and sentences as stated earlier.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

This revision was admitted only qua the quantum of sentence imposed by the courts below. On the request of the petitioner one sample of milk was sent to the Central Food Laboratory. The report received from the said Laboratory which supersedes the report of Public Analyst, Punjab, reveals that milk solids not fat were to the extent of 8.1 percent against the minimum prescribed standard of 8.5 percent.

It was mainly contended on behalf of the petitioner that the adulteration would be covered by the definition of section 2(ia)(m) and not by the definition of section 2(ia)(a)(b)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration ACt.

For the sake of convenience Section 2(ia)(a)(b)(c)(d) and (m) are reproduced as under :

"(ia)" adulterated" an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated :

(a) if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be;

(b) if the article contains any other substance which affects, or if the article is so processed as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;

(c) if any inferior or cheaper substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;

(d) if any constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof.

(e) to (1) xxx xxx

(m) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health;

Provided that, where the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, in either case, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, then, such articles shall not be deemed to be adulterated with in the meaning of this sub clause".

The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of any merit. I find support in my view from the authority of the apex court in Kisan Trimbak Kothula and others v. State of Maharashtra, 1977 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 97, wherein it was observed that "addition of water to milk also amounts to adulteration within the meaning of section 2(i)(ia) after amendment by (Act 34 of 1976) (b), (c) or (d)."

In view of agony of trial and pendency of appeal during last (sic) the sentence awarded by the Courts below is reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine imposed by the court below and in default thereof is maintained.

Except with this modification, there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.