Lal Chand vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.—Lal Chand Petitioner was convicted under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act) and was sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1500/ by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, in an exhaustive and lucid judgment had adverted to every contention raised on behalf f the petitioner and repelling the same has maintained his conviction but reduced his sentence of imprisonment to six months while maintaining the sentence of fine with its default clause. Hence the revision.

On May 24, 1982, Dr. V.K. Ahuja, Government Food Inspector purchased 660 mls of milk from the petitioner for analysis in the presence of Dr. Pardeep Kumar and after completing the formalities, the sample which was sent to the Public Analyst, was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the standard of cow''s milk. On the application made by the petitioner under section 13(2) of the act, another sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory Gaziabad, who also found the same to be adulterated on similar grounds.

An argument laboured with little persistence by Mr. J.R. Mittal in support of the revision petition is that the milk purchased by the Food Inspector from the petitioner was not meant for sale and in the eye of law, the taking of the sample by the Food Inspector did not amount to sale. The identical contention was raised before the appellate Court which has been so adequately and lucidly met by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his Judgment that it would be obviously wasteful and repetitive to cover the same ground over again: Affirming the view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I would reject the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.

It was then contended on behalf of the petitioner 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 in milk solids not fat/than the minimum prescribed standard the said variation should 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 primirity placed on a decision in Roshan Lal v. The State of Punjab 1982(1) C.L.R. 430. I do not agree with him. There is no gain saying the fact that the observation in Roshan Lal''s case (supra) lends singal support to the stand taken on behalf of the petitioner. It is, however, equally 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 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 margins 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 percentage of deviations from the prescribed standard for arriving at a conclusion that article is not adulterated or that marginal deviation from the prescribed standard could be ignored. Consequently, this contention of the learned counsel must also be rejected.

The revision petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed.