Murlidhar, J. - (1.) REVISIONIST Amu Singh has been convicted under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to R. I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default further R. I. for three months.
(2.) THE case against the revisionist was that on 27-8-1978 at about 11'30 A. M. a sample of buffalo milk for safe was obtained by the food inspector from the revisionist and on analysis was found to contain only 5% milk fat and 7.9% non-fatty solids as against the prescribed 6% and 9% milk fat and non-fatty solids respectively. Both the courts below have found the accused guilty. The only point pressed in revision is that the sanction accorded by the Chief Medical Officer in this case is not: a valid one and, therefore, the prosecution is unsustainable. The evidence in the case is that all the necessary papers along with the report of the food inspector were submitted to the Chief Medical Officer who then accorded the sanction Ex.. Ka 6. This order itself also refers to the various documents including particulars of the sample but somehow the food of which sample has been noted as milk c?w instead of milk buffalo. The sole question is whether this sanction can be treated as a valid one treating the words 'milk cow' to be a slip or it should be treated as bad. The courts below have taken the view that the production before and the perusal of the various documents by the Chief Medical Officer the recitals about these documents in the sanction order and the correction of the wrongly 'typed word 'court' in the order by the Chief Medical Officer in his own hand writing go to show application of mind by him, and, therefore, the wrong description of milk cow should be regarded as an inadvertent slip that does not affect the validity of the sanction. I do not think this is a safe view to take. The essence of the offence in food adulteration cases is deviation from the prescribed standard for the particular food. If the food changes, the standard changes. Mentioning cow milk in place of buffalo milk may be immaterial where the departure from the prescribed standard is such that even cow milk would have to be treated as adulterated. In the present case it is not necessarily so. Although the non-fatty solid contents is below the standard of 8.5% prescribed for cow milk the fat contents is in excess of the 3.5% for cow milk. Therefore, if the milk were of cow, different considerations would arise for decision of the case and the principle of marginal shortage in one constituent while there is substantial excess in the fat percentage being regarded as due to a possible mistake in the analysis might become applicable. I would hold that in the circumstances the sanction in question cannot sustain a prosecution for the offence of selling buffalo milk. The conviction must, therefore, be quashed. The revision is allowed. the conviction and sentence of the revisionist are set aside, and he is acquitted of the offence charged. He is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. The fine if paid, shall be refunded. -- Revision allowed.;