State of Punjab vs Mohinder Singh

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

On 771981 Dr. Kuldip Singh intercepted Mohinder Singh respondent in the presence of Dr. S.S. Khera and Pritam Singh PW near village Behrampur while he was having 60 kilograms of cow''s milk in his possession for sale. He purchased 660 mililitres of milk for analysis after disclosing his identity and the milk so purchased was put into three dry and clean bottles. After formalin was added, the bottles were duly scaled. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Jalandhar and the other two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst vide his report Ex. PE opined that the sample contained milk fat 7.6 per cent and milk solids not fat 8 per cent. The same was deficient in milk solids not fat by 6 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard. On receipt of the report of Public Analyst Ex. PE a complaint was filed against the respondent for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The respondent was tried for the offence by Shri R.L. Anand, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, who found him not guilty and acquitted him vide his judgment dated 3111984 which has been assailed by the State of Punjab by means of the present appeal.

It was argued on behalf of the appellant that milk solids not fat found in the sample were 8 per cent which were deficient of the minimum prescribed standard and the milk was, thus, adulterated. The fact that the contents of milk fat were found in excess of the minimum prescribed standard did not absolve the respondent from his criminal liability of the offence of selling adulterated article. The percentage of various constituents of milk disclosed by the Public Analyst could not be added in order to deduce a conclusion therefrom about the overall deficiency or otherwise of the milk from its prescribed standard. The argument addressed by the learned Deputy Advocate General Punjab, is, however, devoid of merit as it has been held in various authorities of this High Court that when milk solids not fat constituents are slightly deficient and milk fat contents are in excess of the minimum prescribed standard then no inference can be drawn that the milk was not pure. In the case of Hans Raj v. The State of Punjab, 1980(2) Food Adulteration Cases 396, it was held :

"When the fat content in the milk is much higher than the minimum prescribed standard, it had necessarily to be inferred that no water had been added to the milk and that the no fatty solid contained below the standard prescribed could justify that either the cow from the udders of which the milk was drawn was not given the proper feed or that the Public Analyst''s report was erroneous but not the inference that the milk in question was not pure."

Similarly in the case of Ujagar Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1980(1) FAC 432 the Public Analyst found milk fat to extent of 5.3 per cent and milk solids not fat 7.5 per cent, it was observed :

"The percentage of milk fat and nonfatty milk solids depends on the proper feeding and 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 non 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 authorities it is clear that when the milk is found deficient in milk solids not fat it cannot be said that the milk is adulterated but the only inference that can be drawn is that the cow was not properly fed. The learned trial Court in these circumstances was justified in arriving at a conclusion that the respondent could not be held liable for selling adulterated milk. The findings of the trial Court are, therefore, affirmed and the appeal is hereby dismissed as being without any substance.