State of Haryana vs Inder Singh

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

On 28th December, 1977 Shri Moti Ram Food Inspector along with Dr. V. K. Malhotra, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Kurukshetra, inspected the premises of Inder Singh respondent and found six Kilograms of unidentified (boiled) milk for public sale in his possession. A sample of 600 mililitres of the milk was purchased by Food Inspector on payment of Rs. 1.40. The milk was divided into three equal parts and bottled in dry and clean bottles. After adding the required quantity of preservative each bottle was labelled, stoppered, fastened and weapped in accordance with the rules. One sealed bottle was sent to Public Analyst, Haryana, for analysis and the other two bottles were deposited with Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst reported that the sample contained milk fat 5.8 per cent and milk solids not fat 8.6 per cent which were deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. Thus a complaint was filed against Inder Singh respondent for his trial for the offence under section 6(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The respondent was convicted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra for the above, said offence and was sentenced. He preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence which was accepted by Shri V. K. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra and conviction and, sentence of the respondent was set aside as per judgment dated 1381981. It is against this judgment that the State of Haryana has filed the present appeal.

The contention of the accusedrespondent when he made statement under Section 313 Cr. PC was that he was running a teastall and that he had kept cow''s milk for the preparation of tea. There was, however, no evidence on record to show that the respondent dealt in the sale of milk. The milk in the instant case was boiled milk.

We have heard Shri J. S. Dhillon, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellant, Shri H. S. Sawhney, Advocate, for the respondent and have gone through the record

The only contention considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was that the milk kept by the respondent in his premises was not meant for sale to the public and it was for preparation of tea in support of these observations the learned lower Appellate Court placed reliance on The State of Maharashtra Vs Udayram Rupram Oza, (1987) Criminal Law Journal 1807 according to which milk kept in a tea shop which was not for sale but for being used as an ingredient in the preparation of tea was not a `sale'' within the meaning of Section 2(xiii) of the Act and as such it did not amount to an offence. The observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Laxmi Narain Tandon etc., AIR 1976 Supreme Court 621 make it clear that the food stored for a purpose other than for sale does not fall within the mischief of this Section. If an article of food is not intended for sale and is in possession of a person who does not fulfil the character of a seller or storer for sale, the Food Inspector will not be competent under the law to take a sample and on such sample being found adulterated, to validly launch prosecution thereon. In view of these authorities the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent was liable for having been found in possession of adulterated milk does not hold good.

The report of the Public Analyst in the instant case that the sample contained milk fat 5.8 per cent and milk solids not fat 8.6 per cent will show that the milk was deficient only by 4 per cent in milk solids not fat of the minimum prescribed standard. The fat content found in the unidentified milk was much higher than the minimum prescribed by the rules so it is to be inferred that no water had been added to the milk and the mere circumstance that non fatty solids contained below the standard prescribed by the rules could further justify the inference either that the cow from the udders & of which the milk was drawn was not given the proper food or that the report of the Public Analyst was erroneous but not the inference that the milk in question was not pure. Sultan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1974 FAC page 424 and Hans Raj v. The State of Punjab, 1982(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 396 are the authorities on this point. In these circumstances the respondent was rightly acquitted of the charge.

For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.