Raghubir vs State of U.P.

M. Wahajuddin, J.—The revisionist has been convicted u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has been awarded six months'' R. I. and Rs. 1000, - as fine. The appeal preferred by the applicant has been dismissed and now the applicant has preferred this revision before this Court.

A number of grounds were taken. Other grounds are concluded by the findings of fact of the courts below. The ground urged here is that as the sample was deficient only in non-fatty solids while fat contents were in excess, there is actually no adulteration. Reliance in that connection was placed upon the cases Rajan Lal v. Stale 1975 AWC 660, Darshan Singh v. State 1981 A CR 112 and Sultan Shah Vs. State, . I may mention that in the case of M.V. Joshi y. M.U. Shimpi AIR 1971 SC 1494 it has been held that if the prescribed standard is not attained, the Legislature treats it as adulterated. It was also observed that when words are clear the court is bound to accept the express intention of Legislature. It is noteworthy that in the standard prescribed, as per scheduled to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules, a certain quantum of non fatty solids is expressly laid down and if the sample of milk does not conform to the same, the milk will be considered adulterated even if the fatty contents are in excess. In the case of State Vs. Azimulla, , a Division Bench decision of this Court, it has been held that if the milk is deficient even in non fatty solids and is below the prescribed standard, it must be held to be adulterated. In the case of Nanhey v. State, 1981 A CR 330 the latest pronouncement of this Court, it has been again held that mere deficiency in non fatty solids would not mean that the milk is not adulterated. In the case of Prem Das v. State, 1961 AWR 405 (Full Bench) also similar proposition of law has been laid down. In fact, the intention of the legislature is clear that the sample must conform to the standard prescribed concerning fatty contents and non-fatty conents solids and deficiency in either would constitute offence.

The revision is, therefore, summarily rejected.