- (1.) S. K. Jain, J. Sample of milk seized from the petitioner on 2-7-1977. One part thereof was sent to the Public Analyst who received it on 9-9-1977 and after analyzing the same, submitted his report dated 13-10-1977, vide which he found the milk to be adulterated inasmuch as it was found deficient by 9% in fat and by 33% in non-fatty solids.
(2.) THE trial Court vide its judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 12-11-1981, convicted him under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay fine of R. 1000. Feeling aggrieved the convict preferred Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1981, which was heard and dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur vide his judgment dated 10-6-1982. This revision is directed against the judgment. Arguments were heard in this case on 5-7-1995 and the judgment was reserved, but on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner this file has been taken up again today as he wanted to cite an authority and press the point that on the dates when the sample was seized and analysed, no standard for the mixed milk was prescribed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties again and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that admittedly sample of the mixed milk, i. e. cow and goat milk was seized on 6-7-1977. The report of the Public Analyst is dated 13-10-1977 ; that by means of notification No. G. S. R. 55 (E), dated 31-1-1979 the standard for mixed milk was prescribed vide Item A. 11-01-11 to Appendix-B wherein minimum per centage of milk fat and non-fatty solids for mixed milk was specified as 4. 5% and 2. 5% respectively on all India basis ; that A. H-01-11 to Appendix-B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 merely prescribed standard for buffalo milk, cow milk and goat milk and it did not spicily any standard for mixed milk of buffalo, cow and goat or that of cow and goat and, there fore, the standard so prescribed in Appendix-B could not be applied to the case in hand.
(3.) I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Item A. 11-011-11 of Appendix-B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 did not specify any standard for mixed milk either that of buffalo, cow or goat or that of cow and goat. The standard for mixed milk was pres cribed vide notification No. G. S. R. 55 (E), dated 31-1-1979 as 4. 5% and 2. 5% respectively on all India basis. Since on 6-7-1977 when the sample was; seized on 2-9-1977 when it was received in the Laboratory ; and on 13- 10-1977 when the report was prepared by the Analyst, no standard for mixed cow and goat milk was prescribed and, therefore, there was no question of the sample being adulterated for the reason that at the relevant time no standard whatsoever for the mixed milk was prescribed. In the above circumstances, it is not possible to sustain the conviction of petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In holding the above view I am fortified by the ratio laid down in Vakil v. State of U. P. , 1981 UP Cr LR 426. Resultantly, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The conviction of petitioner for the said offence as recorded by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the lower appellate court is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bond and sureties are discharged. Petition allowed. .;