State of Punjab vs Som Nath

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Sample of boiled unindicated milk obtained by the Government Food Inspector Dr. P. K. Goyal from Som Nath accused on 2Ist February, 1980 at his Bhiwanigarh shop in Sangrur district of Punjab State was found to be adulterated. Vide its impugned judgment dated 10th August, 1981 learned trial court convicted him of the commission of the offence under section 7 read with sec. 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 to pay Rs. 1000/ as fine. In default of payment of fine, convicted, accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 months.

In Criminal Appeal No. 100 filed on 4th September, 1981 learned lower Appellate Court vide its impugned judgment dated 9th December, 1981 set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court on 20th August, 1981 and acquitted the accused. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment of acquittal aforesaid State of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 201DBA of 1982 in this Court.

We have heard Shri S.K. Sharma, DAG Punjab for the State, Shri Amarjit Markan, Advocate, with Shri Dinesh Goel, Advocate, for the respondent, and have carefully gone through the relevant material on record.

A reference to the report of Public Analyst Exhibit PD brings out that the milk fat in the sample, was 604 per cent as against prescribed 3 per cent while milk solids not fat were 805 per cent as against prescribed 9 per cent i.e. 205 per cent less then the prescribed standard. Similar shortage came to be discussed in Hans Raj v. The State of Punjab, 1980(2) Food Adulteration Cases 396 wherein it was observed, "When the fat content in the milk, is much higher than the minimum prescribed standard it has necessarily to be inferred that no water had been added to the milk and that the nonfatty solids 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 the question was not pure."

The sampling memo Exhibit PA does not state that the sample of milk was thoroughly stirred and made homogeneous. Assertion made by Food Inspector Dr. P. K Goel in this regard is obviously an improvement made nearly 21/2 months after the event. Learned lower Appellate Court, therefore, rightly observed in its impugned judgment dated 9th December,

"I have considered this submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and I feel inclined to accept the same. This submission is based on a recent authority of our own High Court Sultan v. The State of Haryana, 1981 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 638, wherein it was held by Hon''ble Mir. Justice M. M. Punchhi, that in case report of the Public Analyst is silent as to whether the sample of milk was thoroughly shaken and milk was stirred before conducting the analysis and no data is available to indicate whether addition of preservatives to the sample milk had the attribute of preserving it in the shaken and mixed form and for the purpose of maintaining its trustworthiness, a doubt is certainly entertained about the reports of the Public Analyst according to which milk contained fat of more than prescribed quantity and was deficient only in milk solids not fat and the benefit of it must go to the accused. This authority fully applies to the facts of the present case. In the instant case also the milk was not found deficient in fat but was deficient only in milk solids not fat. The report of the Public Analyst is silent about the fact as to whether the milk was thoroughly shaken and stirred before conducting the analysis and there is no data available to indicate whether addition of preservatives to the sample of milk had the attribute of preserving it in the shaken and mixed form and for the purpose of maintaining is trustworthiness. In these circumstances, the possibility that upper layer of milk alone was examined resulting in high percentage of milk fat and low percentage of milk solids not fat cannot be ruled out. So doubt about the report of Public Analyst has certainly crept in and the benefit of the same must go to the appellant. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be given the benefit of doubt which is hereby granted to him."

There is thus no ground to interfere. Criminal Appeal No. 201DBA of 1982 is, therefore, dismissed.