Sher Singh vs State of Haryana

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Almost opposite Bus Stand, Bhiwani, around 10.10 p.m. on July 30, 1981 accused petitioner Sher Singh was found carrying 20 Kgs. of cow''s milk for public sale. Government Food Inspector Dev Raj purchased 660 ml. of milk out of it for Rs. 2/ as sample which was found on analysis to be adulterated. On being prosecuted for it, learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment dated January 18, 1983 convicted the accused of the commission of the offended under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and pay Rs. 1000/ as fine. In default of payment of fine the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of four months.

In Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1983 decided on 20th March, 1986 learned lower Appellate Court maintained both the conviction and the sentence passed against him by the learned trial Court. Convicted accused Sher Singh has filed Criminal Revision No. 475 of 1986 in this Court.

I have heard Shri G.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri D.S. Bishnoi, D.A.G. Haryana, for the respondent and have perused the relevant material on record very carefully.

Report Exhibit PE submitted by the Public Analyst gives out milk fat as 6.5% as against prescribed 4% of cow''s milk. Milk solids not fat are stated to be 8.1% as against prescribed stranded of 8.5% i.e. 0.4 per cent less than the prescribed standard. In such a situation it was held in Hans Raj v. The State of Punjab, 1980(2) Food Adulteration Cases 396 : "When the fat content in the milk is much higher than the minimum prescribed standard, it has necessarily to be inferred no water has been added to the milk and that the nonfatty solid contained below the standard prescribed could justify that either the cow from the udders of which the milk was drawn was not given the proper feed or that the Public Analyst''s report was erroneous but not the inference that the milk in question was to pure".

Similarly, in Nasib Chand v. The State (Union Territory), Chandigarh, 1981(1) All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 43 it was observed: "The failure of Government Food Inspector to join independent witnesses of the locality while taking the sample violates Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, affects the credibility of the Food Inspector and conviction of the accused is liable to be set aside on this score." It would thus appear that the learned courts below erred in holding that the sample of milk taken from the accused was adulterated.

In this view of the matter Criminal Revision No. 475 of 1986 is allowed, conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned lower Appellate Court are both set aside and accused petitioner Sher Singh is acquitted. The petitioner is on bail from this Court vide order dated April 10, 1986. Bail bonds furnished by his surety and the personal bond put in by the accused shall both stand discharged.