Tara Singh vs The State

Bedi, J.—Tara Singh Petitioner, who is a halwai carrying business at Sangrur, was sent up for trial u/s 16(1) (a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act 37 of 1954). He was convicted by a Magistrate of the first class on 31st December 1962 for the above offence and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years besides a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Petitioner felt aggrieved and approached the Court of Session in appeal which came up before the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, on 8th April l963, who maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to one year, maintaining the fine of Rs. 2.000/-, which is the minimum under these circumstances.

The story for the prosecution runs as under. Shri P. R. Malhotra, Government Food Inspector, Sangrur, visited the shop of the Petitioner on 31st January 1962 at about 10.45 a.m. and found the Petitioner in possession of about 5 seers of cow''s milk for sale lying in a bucket. After giving notice to the Petitioner in the prescribed form under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, l956, Shri Malhotra purchased 24 ozs. of milk from the Petitioner for Re. 0.33 nP. as a sample. This sample was divided into three equal parts and bottled in three dry clean bottles. Sixteen drops of formalin were added in each of those three battles which were properly labelled, stoppered and securely fastened and then made into sealed parcels. One of these bottles was made over to the Petitioner, while one was sent to the Public Analyst for examination and one was retained by the Food Inspector himself. After examination the Public Analyst submitted his report saying that the milk sent to him was adulterated with 95 per cent of skimmed milk. It was thereafter that a complaint was lodged against the Petitioner which ended in the above mentioned result.

The Petitioner when examined u/s 342, Criminal Procedure Code, denied the allegations against him and averred that he was not even present at the shop when the milk is said to have been purchased by the Food Inspector and that he was sent for from his house thereafter. When the Petitioner came to the shop, the Food Inspector told him that he had filled three sample bottles of milk from his shop. He also averred that the milk in question was not kept for sale there. In support of his plea he examined Sadhu Singh and Sher Singh.

The prosecution examined Shri P. R. Malhotra P. W. 1, Isher Chand P. W. 2 and Sadhu Lal P. W. 3. P. W. 2, however, did not support the prosecution case and both the Courts below came to the conclusion that he had been won over by the Petitioner. Those Courts also did not rely on the defence evidence.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner firstly submitted that there is no evidence on the record to show that the milk in question was kept at the shop for sale. May be it was kept there for preparing resgullas and amritis which are usually prepared from cow''s milk. This argument of the Petitioner''s learned Counsel, however, is devoid of force when we look to the definition of "sale" as given in Section 2{xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. "Sale" is defined there as under:

''sale'' with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means the sale of any article of food, whether for cash or on credit or by way of exchange and whether by wholesale or retail, for human consumption or use, or for analysis, and includes an agreement for sale, an offer for sale, the exposing for sale or having in possession for sale of any such article, and includes also an attempt to sell any such article.

The important words for our purpose in this case are "or for analysis" Now, this sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector for analysis. Under the circumstances it amounts to sale. Moreover this point has been dealt with in Public Prosecutor v. Annamalia AIR 1958 Mad. 862, wherein it is laid down that if a Sanitary Inspector purchases some butter for purposes of analysis, the transaction amounts to sale.

The next point which was agitated by the Petitioner''s learned Counsel was that in this case the sample was taken by the Food Inspector on 31st January 1966, the report of the Public Analyst was submitted on 7th February 1962, and the complaint was filed on 8th February 1962 and there is no evidence on the record to show that after the sample in question was taken, it was kept by the Food Inspector or the Analyst under a proper temperature, and as the examination was conducted after some time the milk probably deteriorated in its quality. This argument is, however, conjectural. It is in evidence that at the time of taking sample and before corking the bottles 16 drops of formalin were put in each bottle evidently for keeping the properties of the milk intact. In any case it was open to the Petitioner to call the Public Analyst or the Food Inspector, as the case may be, and get the matter verified. The Food Inspector when examined in Court was not put any question on that point. In fact he was not cross-examined at all. According to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the rules made thereunder the cow''s milk in Punjab should contain 4 per cent of fat as the minimum, but in the present case the fat found in the milk was 2 per cent. The adulteration, therefore, in this case was to the extent of 95 per cent of skimmed milk. In other words it was almost skimmed milk which was being sold by the Petitioner as cow''s milk.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further averred that in any case if the conviction of the Petitioner is maintained, the sentence should be reduced, but unfortunately, the sentence imposed on the Petitioner is the minimum and the Court has to give special reasons if the imprisonment or the fine is to be reduced further. In this case, however, as stated above, there are no special reasons for so doing as the Petitioner had once before been convicted of a similar offence. The revision therefore stands dismissed.