0.N.VOHRA, J - (1.) Brief facts leading to this appeal against acquittal are these. On July 9, 1970 at 7.30 a.m. Food Inspector 0. P. Khurana purchased 660 millilitres cow's milk on payment of 75 P. from Sunder Dass, hereinafter referred to as the respondent. who was carrying on Halwai shop at 1150, Teliwara Chowk, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. This was dene after disclosing the identity and intimating the respondent that the purchase was for the purpose of analysis. The Public Analyst to whom one of the three samples, which were prepared in. conformity with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954. hereinafter referred to as the Act. and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 1955. hereinafter referred to as the Rules, was delivered on the same date for analysis. found that milk fat was 3.8 per cent and milk solids not fat 8.713 per cent against minimum of 3.5 per cent and 8.5 per cent respectively, as prescribed by Rule A. 11.01.11 of Appendix B of the Rules which lays down the standard for cow's milk. He further found presence of cane sugar (sucrose) to the extent of O.817 ..per cent. Accordingly, he declared that the sample was adulterated. On receipt of the report, complaint under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Act was filed by Delhi Municipal Corporation through its Assistant Municipal Prosecutor, Shri R. N. Gujral, alleging adulteration. Miss S. Saini, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, framed the following charge on October 5, 1970 : "That you on 9th July, 1970 at about 7.30 a.m. were selling cow's milk at your shop No. 1150, Teliwara Chowk, Kishan. Ganj, Delhi when, a sample thereof was purchased from you by Shri O. P. Khurana, Food Inspector, and which on analysis was found to be adulterated, and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954............".
(2.) . During the trial the respondent took the stand that the cow's milk which he was selling was not adulterated and the sample that was lifted conformed to the standard prescribed for cow's milk. He further took the stand that sugar had been added in order to save the milk from early decomposition. In' defence, two witnesses were examined. Ram Sarup Khurana (DWI), who claimed to be doing dairy business for twenty years, stated that milk de-composes early in summer and in order to prolong the life by about three hours 25 grams of cane sugar is added to milk in a can containing 20 litres of milk or so. S. Ray, ex-Public Analyst, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, examined as DW2 stated on the basis of his experience of about 34 years in the matter of analysis of food articles that addition of I per cent cane sugar to raw milk before it actually starts curdling extends the life. In cross-examination and again in re-examination he made it clear that addition of cane sugar to milk would not add to n,on fat solids of milk in as much as according to the standard it is milk fat and milk solids non-fats which are reckoned and that separate test for cane sugar (which is a different solid) is performed to detect its presence.
(3.) . Shri S. P. Sabharwal, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi took the view that the sample of milk sold by the respondent was adulterated within the meaning of Section, 2(i)(a) of the Act as what had been sold was not of "the nature, substance or quality" demanded by the purchaser and was to his prejudice or was not of "the nature, substance or quality" which it purported or was represented to be The basis for this conclusion was that the milk was contained in a Bhagena which bore the inscription "Gayai Ka Doodh" but what was sold was cow's milk to which sugar had been added and thus the nature, substance or quality of the article of food stood affected. As a result of this finding, the charge against the respondent was held as established and the respondent was convicted under Section 16 read with Section' 7 of the Act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. l,000.00 and, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months on the view that the case was not covered by the proviso to Section 16(1) of the Act under which sub-minimum sentence could be possible.;