State of Punjab vs Gian Chand

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

On 2610.1982 at about 11.15 A.M. at bus stop of village Dhanaula, shop of Gian Chand accusedrespondent was inspected by Dr. Pardeep Kumar in the presence of Dr. M. L. Sharma. After disclosing his identity as Food Inspector, the Food Inspector purchased 660 mililitres of buffalo''s milk out of 15 kilograms of milk lying in the shop which was meant for sale. The sample so purchased was divided into three equal parts, was put into three dry and clean bottles, which were scaled according to rules after preservative was added. One sample bottle was sent to Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, and the other two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst vide his report dated 7111982 found that the sample was deficient in milk fat by 3 per cent and in milk solids not fat by 1 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard and was thus adulterated. On these allegations Gian Chand was tried for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

The contention of the respondent was that he had strained relations with Dr. M.L. Sharma and the complaint was instituted against him at his instance

After perusing the record and hearing the counsel for the parties the learned trial Court found that there was violation of Section 13(2) of the Act and the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Gian Chand was, therefore, acquitted by Shri Charan Dass Gupta, learned/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala vide his judgment dated 2131984 which has been assailed by the State of Punjab by way of this appeal.

It was argued on behalf of the appellant that there was no contravention of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act as according to these provisions the report of the Public Analyst was to be sent to the accused after launching the prosecution and there was no obligation on the complainant to send copy of the report as soon as it was received from the Public Analyst. This contention of the learned counsel however, is net of any substance. The sample in the present case was stated to have taken on 26101982 and one sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst after examining the sample prepared his report on 29111982 and sent the same to Local Health Authority, Sangrur. It was received in the office of the Local Health Authority on 3121982. As per this report the sample of milk was found deficient in milk fat as well as in milk solids not fat but still no complaint was filed, against the respondent till 205.1983. It was not explained as to why the respondent was not brought to trial for such a long time when he was found in possession of adulterated milk which was meant for sale. Statement of Shri Kishan PW 1 shows that copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the respondent on 2541982 i.e. after a period of six months of the purchase of milk for sample. Under Subsection (2) of Section 13 on receipt of the report on result of the analysis to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local Health Authority shall after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken, forward a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such a person informing him that if he so desired he may make an application to the Court within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to set the sample of article of food kept by the Local Health Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The delay in sending copy of the report, thus, clearly prejudiced the right of the respondent to get the other sample analysed from the Central Food Laboratory.

In the present case Gian Chand when he received notice of the complaint and copy of the report of the Public Analyst exercised his right to act the sample analysed from the Central Food Laboratory and certificate of test by the Central Food Laboratory is Ex. PH. According to this report there was no deficiency of milk fat in the sample. There was marginal deficiency of 3 per cent in milk solids not fat contents in spite of the fact that the sample was not fit for analysis due to lapse of time. It was observed in this report that physical appearance of the sample showed fat separation on the surface, although Director, Central Food Laboratory observed that the sample could be homogenised by slight warning and mixing, but he had not mentioned that he actually warmed or mixed the sample before analysing the same. This certificate superseded the report of the Public Analyst and according to it even otherwise the sample was not adulterated. The milk fat contents were found in excess of the minimum prescribed standard and the deficiency in milk solids not fat contents was too insignificant. In such a case the observations made in the cast of Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 432 which are given below are applicable :

"The percentage of milk fat and nonfatty milk solids depends on the proper feeding and the health of the animal. There is a problem of nonavailability of nourishing and sufficient quantity of food for the cattle, both green and otherwise. The quantity of food given to an animal affects to certain extent, the quantity and quality of milk produced by it. Apparently it is not possible to take out not fatty solids from milk without reducing or affecting the fat contents. As such in this case it cannot be said that the accusedpetitioner intentionally effected any adulteration in the milk."

In view of the above mentioned authority, it is clear that when the milk is found deficient in milk solids not fat it cannot be said that the milk not pure but the only inference that can be drawn is that the buffalo was not properly fed. So viewing from any angle the charge against the respondent was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and he was rightly acquitted.

As a result we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.