Ved Parkash Bathla vs State of Haryana

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1 While admitting criminal revision No. 86 of 1996, this Court had passed the following order :

"The analysis of the milk sample indicated that it contained only 2.0% of the fat and 8.5% of solids not fat. Thereby the milk fell below the standard prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It was contended that the milk in question was boiled milk and no standard for boiled milk has been prescribed. On referring to the Clause A. 11.01.11 of the Act which prescribes the standard for different classes of milk, I find that the standard regarding boiled buffalo milk and also in respect of boiled cow milk has been prescribed. It was claimed by the petitioner that it was boiled cow milk. In respect of boiled cow milk the standard prescribed is that it should contain 3.5% of fat and 9.0% solids not fat. The analysis shows that the milk in question has fallen below the standard. However, it was brought to my notice that the milk weighing 5 liters only was at the teashop of the accused, and from there the sample was taken. That raises arguable point on facts and law in so far as it pertains to the contention that the milk was not meant for sale. In view of that revision admitted."

2 None has caused appearance for the petitioner. The case has been called many times.

3 Two contentions which have been recorded in the admission order are not tenable. The Hon''ble Apex Court has consistently held that argument of marginal deficiency is not available and adulterated food article should be strictly in consonance with the standards prescribed under the Act. Both the courts below have returned findings of fact that it cannot be inferred that the milk ings initiated on the 2nd complaint dated 2432007 forwarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on 2932007 followed by order dated 266 2007 Chief Judicial Magistrate are quashed.