State of Punjab vs Bhajan Singh

.L. Bahri, J.

Vide this judgment two appeals (Crl. Appeal Nos. 272DBA and 275DBA of 1983) are being disposed of as similar question is involved in both the cases which has been argued in these appeals. In Criminal Appeal No. 272DBA of 1983 Bhajan Singh is the accused from whom a sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector on May 27, 1981. As usual the sample was divided into 3 parts and put in three clean and dry bottles. 18 drops of formalin, a preservative, was added in each of the bottles. The sample were duly scaled. On analysis the Public Analyst found that the sample of cow''s milk contained milk fat 7.1% and milk solids not fat 8.1%. The sample was thus found to be deficient in milk solids not fat by 5%, of the prescribed standard. Bhajan Singh was, therefore, tried for commission of offence under section. 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act), Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, on November 17, 1982 recorded conviction of Bhajan Singh for contravention of Rule 50 of the Rules framed under the Act punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. He was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/ in default of payment thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

In Criminal Appeal No. 275 DBA of 1983 Anokh Singh is the accused from whose possession a sample of cow''s milk was purchased by the Food Inspectoron June 19, 1981. As per report of the Public Analyst the sample contained milk fat 7.4% and milk solids not fat 8.1%. In respect of milk solids not fat it was deficient by 5% of the standard prescribed. In this case the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kapurthala, recorded conviction of Anokh Singh under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act for contravening. Rule 50 of the Rules and he was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ in default of payment thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. In both the cases State has come up in appeal.

In both these cases the samples of food were sent to the Central Food Laboratory and reports of the Director Central Food Laboratory were received. There was variation in the report of the Director with that of the Public Analyst. The trial Court in Bhupinder Singh''s case while referring to the report of the Director observed that milk fat was found to be 6% as against 4% prescribed standard and milk solids not fat 8%. It was not mentioned in the report that the milk was stirred at the time of its analysis. Following the decision in Ram Kumar v. The State of Punjab, 1982(1) FAC 68, it was held that it was not a case of adulteration and on that charge the accused was acquitted. Likewise in the other case, Anokh Singh was acquitted of the charge as the Director, Central Food Laboratory, reported milk fat 6.9% and milk solids not fat 8.1%. Milk solids not fat was less than the minimum standard prescribed as per opinion given by the Director.

In both the cases Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate relied upon the decisions of this Court in Ujagar Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1980(1) FAC 432; Ram Kumar v. The State of Punjab, 1982(1) FAC 68 and Sultan v. The State of Haryana, 1983(1) FAC 116. While acquitting the accused in Ujagar Singh''s case (supra) it was observed that the deficiency in the milk solids not fat'' could be on account of nonavailability of nourishing and sufficient quantity of food to the cattle as the quantity of food given to the animal could affect to some extent, the quality of the milk produced. It was further observed that it was not possible to take out nonfatty solids from milk without reducing or affecting the fat contents. The accused did not intentionally effect any adulteration in the milk. Similar view was taken in Ram Kumar''s case (supra). In Sultan Singh''s case (supra) it was observed that it was not mentioned in the report of the Public Analyst that he had properly stirred the milk before analysing it. In that case also there was deficiency in milk solids hot fat. The view expressed in the aforesaid judgments which was relied upon by the trial court is not Correct. The Full Bench in the State of Punjab v. Teja Singh, 1976 PLR. 433, discarded the theory of clubbing of different constituents as found in the sample of milk by the Public Analyst to deduce the conclusion therefrom about the fat deficiency or otherwise of the milk from its prescribed standard. It was observed that the Court was not 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. It was further held that negligent or marginal deviation from the prescribed standard laid down by the Act could not be ignored. Subsequently the matter was considered by the Division Bench in State of Haryana v. Harpat and another, Criminal Appeal No. 571DBA of 1980, decided on March 3, 1982. The decision in Sultan Singh''s case (supra) was overruled by the Division Bench. The matter was again considered by another Division Bench of this Court in Mewa Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh, 1982(2) FAC 315. As the matter was referred in view of different views taken in Hans Raj v. State of Punjab, 1980(2) FAC 396; Jagat Ram v. State of Haryana, 1987(2) FAC 119 and on the other hand in State of Punjab v. Teja Singh, 1976 PLR 433, it was observed that the judgments in Bans Raj''s case and Jagat Ram''s case were overruled. In Gopal Dutt v. State of Haryana, Crl. Revision No. 1294 of 1981, decided on July 27, 1982. Sultan Singh''s case as already stated above was stated to be overruled in Harpat''s case. In view of the position of law as laid down by the Full Bench in Teja Singh''s case the view expressed in Ujagar Singh and Ram Kumar''s cases stands overruled. The orders of the trial Court cannot be sustained in this respect. The reports of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, are final and conclusive proof of the contents. These reports supersede the reports of the Public Analyst in these cases. Since the Director had found the samples of milk deficient in milk solids not fat, the samples are, therefore, held to be adulterated and both the accused in the two cases referred to above are held guilty of commission of offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Act.

In these cases samples of milk were purchased about 10 years ago and they are now to be sentenced for selling adulterated milk. They were earlier sentenced under section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act for selling milk without any licence as stated above. It will not be appropriate after 10 years to send the accused to jail. The ends of justice would be met if they are sentenced to imprisonment already undergone and to pay an additional fine of Rs. 1000/ each, in default of payment of fine they would undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. It is so ordered while accepting the appeal.