Pappu Singh vs State of U.P.

B.K. Sharma, J.

This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 2831997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 170 of 1996, whereby he dismissed the same and confirmed the judgment and order, dated 201119% passed by the 1st Addl. C.J.M. Agra who had convicted the present accused revisionist of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month.

Heard counsel for the parties.

The prosecution case was that the present accusedrevisionist Pappu Singh was found selling adulterated mixed milk on his cycle in a container on a shop of Halwai within Nagar Mahapalika precincts, that the Food Inspector took sample of the mixed milk and the necessary formalities were performed and the report of the public analyst came that the sample found containing 5.4% milk fat and 7.7% nonfatty solids and since the nonfatty solids were found to be less by 9%. The Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accusedrevisionist as aforesaid which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge.

Before me relying on the authority of Duli Chand v. State of U.P. 1987 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal, Vol. VI, page 305, it was argued that the result of the public analyst was unreliable and not free from reasonable doubt and the benefit has to go to the accusedrevisionist. In the case of Duli Chand, the accused had been selling cow milk and the fa" contents of the milk were found to be 4.3%, nonfatty solids were found to be 7.8%. Whereas the standard for cow milk as given in AppendixB as applicable to the State was milk fat 3.5% and milk solid nonfatty 8.5%. In this way, although the fatty solids were found to be more than the prescribed limit, the nonfatty solids were found to be a bit deficient. The report of the public analyst was held to be not free from reasonable doubt.

In the present case, the milk was said to be mixed milk and in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, AppendixB, Entry A. 11.01.11 provided for mixed milk, the minimum percentage of milk fat as 4.5% and of milk solids nonfatty as 8.5.%. As against this prescribed standard, the report of the public analyst in the present case showed that he found 5.4% milk fat (as against 4.5% minimum as provided in the standard, though the nonfatty solids were found to be 7.7%. There is a variation in the case of nonfatty solids on the lower side as per the report of the public analyst but it is difficult to extract from mixed milk nonfatty milk solids while leaving the milk fat surplus beyond the prescribed standard. In the normal course, the effort is to take out milk fat from the milk so that it could be sold away for profit. When the milk fat has been left intact to the extent that it v/as found surplus, it is difficult to believe that nonfatty solids will be extracted from the milk. I am fully inclined to follow the authority of Duli Chand v. State ofU.P. in the present case and held the report of the public analyst to be doubtful.

Consequently, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order of both the courts below are set aside and the accusedrevisionist is acquitted of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The accusedrevisionist is on bail from this court. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Sessions Judge concerned for information and compliance.

Revision allowed.