Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the appellate order upholding the conviction of the applicant under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He was sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - by the trial court the appellate court while maintaining the conviction and the fine reduced the sentence of imprisonment from six months to the period extending upto the rising of the court.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel contended that the conviction was bad because the sample taken on 18th May 1971 was examined by the Public Analyst on 1 -7 -1971. The Report of the Public Analyst, however, indicates that the sample was in a condition fit for analysis and that no change had taken place in the contents of the milk which may have interfered with the analysis. There is no time limit fixed by law for the analysis being conducted after obtaining the sample. So long as the sample continues to remain in the same condition, analysis can be made, and the report of the Public Analyst, because of the delay which is not inordinate, cannot be regarded as unreliable to prove that the food was adulterated. In the case of Ajit Prasad Ram Kishan Singh v. The State of Maharashtra : AIR 1972 SC 1631 it was held that the Public Analyst's report cannot be disregarded unless the accused had applied for getting the sample tested by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory as provided by Section 13 of the Act. If the sample had been declared by the Director as having deteriorated and having become unfit for analysis due to decomposition the report of the Public Analyst could be discarded. The next contention of the learned Counsel is that the deficiency in the sample of Food was only marginal. Here too learned Counsel is not correct. According to the report of the Public Analyst the sample was deficient in fat contents by about 6 percent and in non -fatty solid contents by about 39 per cent. Such a deficiency cannot be treated as negligible or marginal to give the accused any benefit of doubt. Moreover, once the law prescribes a limit, the court cannot change that limit and fix different tests for determining whether food was adulterated or not. In the present case the deficiency found by the Public Analyst is sufficient to bring the milk under the category of adulterated food.
(3.) THE third point raised by the learned Counsel is that the sentence awarded is too severe. In my view, however, the sentence awarded leans towards leniency and not severity.;