Dev Raj vs State of Punjab

Pritpal Singh, J.

This criminal revision has been filed by Dev Raj against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated 19th of May, 1983, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Amritsar, whereby he was convicted under Section 16(1)(a) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and was sentenced to six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.

The Food Inspector went to the shop of the petitioner on 9th of April, 1981, and found that the petitioner had in his possession 20 Kg. of cow''s milk for sale. A sample of the milk was purchased by the Food Inspector which on analysis was found to be deficient in milk solids not fat as compared to the minimum prescribed standard. The petitioner was, therefore, prosecuted for selling substandard milk and he was convicted and sentenced by the trial Magistrate as mentioned above. The appeal filed by the petitioner which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, also failed. Hence this revision.

The contention of the petitioner''s counsel is that the milk was not properly stirred by the Food Inspector when its sample was taken. This contention in my opinion must prevail. A perusal of the complaint filed by the Food Inspector would show that the fact of the stirring of milk before the sample was purchased is not incorporated therein. The Food Inspector had stated in his statement when he entered the witnessbox that he had stirred the milk before he purchased the sample but this statement must be considered to be an improvement which cannot be relied upon in view of a Divisional Bench judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ram Dhan, (1983)(1) Recent Criminal Reports 56: 1986 Cr. Law Times 100 . In that case too it was not mentioned in the complaint that the milk was stirred before its sample was purchased. Despite the Food Inspector making a statement at trial that he had stirred the milk, the factum of stirring of the milk was not accepted.

According to the prescribed standard of cow''s milk it must contain 4% fat and 8.5% solids not fat. In the instant case the sample was found to be containing 5% fat and 8% solids not fat. In other words, the fat contents were more than the minimum prescribed standard but the solids not fat were marginally deficient. It is a matter of common knowledge that if the milk is left unstirred then fats accumulate on the top. It is only when the milk is stirred that it becomes even in its contents of fat and not solid fat. In the present case the fact that fat was found more than the minimum prescribed standard and the marginal deficiency was only in the solids not fat would further indicate that the stirring of the milk at the time of taking the sample is doubtful.

As a result of what is discussed above, this revision is allowed, conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. The amount of fine if deposited by him be refunded.