Nanak Singh vs State

Man Mohan Singh Gujral, J.—Nanak Singh was convicted u/s 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to six months'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1.000. His appeal was also dismissed by the Additional Session Judge, Ludhiana, by order dated 12th October 1970 and he has now come up in revision to this Court.

A sample of cow-milk was purchased from the petitioner by Dalbara Singh, Food Inspector, Municipal Committee, Raikot, on 23rd October, 1969 after the service of due notice and the milk was then put into three dry and clean bottles in equal parts. The Food Inspector then added formalin to the bottles and stoppered and sealed them. Of those, one was given to the petitioner, another was sent to the Public Analyst and the third was retained by the Food Inspector. On receipt of the report from the Public Analyst that the milk was adulterated, a complaint was filed against the accused.

The only argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the deficiency of milk solids other than fat was merely marginal and negligible and the petitioner was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. Reliance in support of this argument is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Malwa Co-operative Milk Union Ltd. v. Behari Lal CA Nos. 235, 236 of 1964, Civil Appeals Nos. 235-36 of 1964 decided on 14th August, 1967. In the above case it was found that there was a sight deficiency in solids other than fat, but the fat contents of the sample were higher than the minimum required under the Jaw. Considering that the analyst may not always be able to isolate the fat contents so successfully as not to leave room for a slight variation and also keeping in view the fact that what was generally extracted was cream and not other solids, the Supreme Court considered the variation as borderline in that case. The following observation may be read with advantage:

The argument of Mr. D. P. Singh that in these circumstances one would expect near perfection in the milk, may be accepted But that does not prove that near perfection must be accepted in the work of the analyst when the difference from the standard is only 1 percent in one case 0.4 per cent in the other. It is possible that a slight error in calculation or in isolation of fat might have been made.

In the cases before the Supreme Court, the deficiency in solids other than fat was of 1 per cent in one case and of 0 4 per cent in the other case and the deficiencies were considered to be marginal.

4 The ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court was considered by the Delhi High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Petitioner Vs. Om Prakash, , and S. Rangarajan, J, after referring to certain passage from an article by S. N. Mitra of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, and from the book entitled "The Chemical Analysis of Foods and Food products" by Morris B. Jacobs, made the following observations:

In a case where the chemical analysis of a sample of milk taken six months ago revealed a deficiency of 0. 3% in soild fat and the accused pleaded that the deficiency was due to the delay in making the analysis. Held that even in addition to the fact of passage of time pleaded by the accused the deficiency was merely marginal and negligible. The accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

In my opinion, the above observations are fully attracted to the present case and the ratio of the decision in Malwa Co-operative Silk Union''s case is also applicable to the facts of the present case. The report of the Public Analyst is that the milk fat was 6 per cent, which was higher than the standard prescribed for cow-milk, while milk solids other than fat was 8 per cent. The deficiency was only 0 5%. There being no deficiency in (he fat contents and the solids contents being more than the prescribed limit, it would be reasonable to conclude that the deficiency in solids other than fat was marginal and this deficiency could be due to the failure of the Public Analyst to separate the contents properly from non fatty solids. It would, therefore, be a fit case for giving the benefit to the petitioner, consequently the revision petition is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted. He is on bail and his bail bond shall stand discharged.