State vs Narayana Konar

M.N. Moorthy, J.—This is an appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Devakottai, in C.C. No. 148 of 1976.

The accused was tried for an offence under Ss. 7 (1), 16(1) (a) (1) read with S. 2(l) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. According

to the evidence of P.W.I, Food Inspector, on 20th February, 1976 at 8.15 a.m. at Puduvayal, he found the accused carrying buffalo milk in a

brass vessel for sale. He purchased buffalo milk for RS. 1.20 from the accused and received Ex. P2, the receipt. After observing the formalities, he

sent a sample to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst is Ex. P4 in the case. From Ex. P4 it is seen that the analyst has

tested the buffalo milk, sent to him for analysis as per clause A. 11.14 in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. He

found the buffalo milk to be adulterated, in that it contained 74% of milk fat and 26% of extraneous fat not derived from the milk.

The learned counsel appearing for the accused in the trial Court took a point that Ex. P4, Analyst Report, shows that the sample sent to him in

the instant case was analysed as per clause A. 11.14 in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and the said Rule would

apply only for testing ghee. According to him, the Public Analyst should have applied C1.A.11.01.03 as that is the relevant clause to be applied for

testing buffalo milk.

Cl. A. 11.14 in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules reads as follows:

Ghee means the pure clarified fat derived solely from milk from curd or from deshi (cooking) butter or from cream to which no coloring matter or

preservative has been added. The standard quality of ghee produced in a State or Union Territory specified in column 2 of the table below shall be

as specified against the said State or Union territory in the corresponding columns 3,4, 5 and 6 of the said table.

Cl. A. 11.01.11 in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 is the standard prescribed for buffalo milk.

It is clear in this case, the Public Analyst should have applied Cl. A. 11.01.03 as that is the relevant clause to be applied for testing buffalo milk.

Instead of that the analyst has applied the test to be applied for ghee. This is a point well taken by the learned counsel for the accused in the lower

court and correctly upheld by the trial Magistrate.

The learned Public Prosecutor is not able to give a proper explanation why the analyst applied the test intended for ghee when he was asked to

test the buffalo milk sent for analysis in this case. As seen from these two relevant clauses for analysis, the test for buffalo milk is quite different

from the test for ghee,

I am satisfied that the order of the learned Magistrate, on the point raised in the lower court, is correct. I find no reason to interfere with the

order of acquittal. The appeal preferred by the State is dismissed.