Gurdip Singh @ Ram Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

In this criminal revision, Gurdip Singh petitioner assails his conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act). The learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar, sentenced him to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, upheld his conviction and sentence. He has now come up in revision.

The broad outline of prosecution case is that on 14th May, 1980, Dr. Sat Pal, Govt. Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. Karnail Singh intercepted the petitioner on MuktsarKotkapura road. The petitioner was carrying 10 kgs. of cow''s milk in a drum for sale. Dr. Sat Pal purchased 660 Mls. of milk for analysis. After completing the formalities, the sample of milk was later on sent to the Public Analyst, who vide his report, Exhibit P.H., reported that it was deficient in milk solids not fat by 16% of the minimum prescribed standard and hence it was declared to be adulterated.

The case against the petitioner rests primarily on the testimony of Dr. Sat Pal, Dr. Karnail Singh and Parveen Kumar. The petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that the milk was meant for domestic consumption and not for sale.

An argument laboured with little persistence by Mr. S.M. Lal Arora in support of the revision petition is that because the sample of milk was found on analysis to have milk fat in excess of the minimum prescribed standard and was marginally deficient milk solids not fat than the minimum prescribed standard, the said variation could be set off against each other and the milk could not be held as adulterated within the definition under the Act. Reliance on behalf of the petitioner was primarily placed on a decision in Jagat Ram v. The State of Haryana, 1981 C.L.R. (P&H) 684. I do not agree with him. There is no gainsaying the fact that the observations in Jagat Ram''s case (supra0, lends support to the stand taken on behalf of the petitioner. It is, however, manifest that this is in direct conflict with what has been authoritatively laid down by the Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Teja Singh, 1976 P.L.R. 433. Therein, the specific legal issues which fell for consideration are formulated in the following terms :

(i) Whether it is permissible to add the percentages of the various of constituents of milk disclosed by the Public Analyst and thereafter to deduce a conclusion therefrom about the overall deficiency or otherwise of the milk from its prescribed standards ?

(ii) Whether the Court is entitled to assume a slight or reasonable margin of error in the conclusions recorded by the Public Analyst during the course of analysis of the milk ?

(iii) Whether a negligible or marginal deviation from the prescribed standard laid down by the Act can be ignored and acquittal recorded on that basis ?

It was authoritatively and categorically held that the answer to all the three questions must be returned in the negative.

In view of the above, it seems to be plain that no resort can be had to the process of any addition or subtraction of the percentages of deviation from the prescribed standard for arriving at a conclusion that the article is not adulterated of that marginal deviation from the prescribed standard could be ignored. Consequently, this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner must be rejected.

The learned counsel has prayer for reduction in the sentence. There is some scope for reduction in the sentence. I accordingly reduce his sentence of imprisonment to 6 months but impose a fine of Rs. 1000/ on him in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Court, as I feel that it will meet the ends of justice. In default of payment of fine, he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

With this modification in the sentence, the revision petition fails and is herein.