- (1.) T. P. Garg, J. Ram Vishal son of Indrapal, resident of Phoolwamau, district Fatehpur has filed the present revision against the judgment and order dated 11-8-1982 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, maintaining his conviction under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and sentence to undergo R. I. for six months and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R. I. for six months.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 6-12-1980 at about 10 a. m. , Sri B. R. Singh Food Inspector, Nagar Palika, Fatehpur, visited the place of work of the accused and purchased milk weighting 660 Ml. on payment of Rs. 1. 32. THE accused is stated to be engaged in the sale of cow buffalo milk at that time. THE milk so purchased was put in three separate clean bottles, sealed and taken into possession. One of the sealed bottles was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis while the remain ing two sealed bottles were deposited in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Fatehpur. THE Public Analyst vide his report Ex. Ka 3 found that the sample of milk contained Milk Fats 5. 2% and non-fatty solids 7. 6% and opined that non-fatty solids were deficient by 11%. After obtaining the requisite sanction from the Chief Medical Officer, Fatehpur, a complaint was filed in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur on 7-3-1981. The accused denied the aforesaid charge and pleaded that he was falsely involved in the case. Further that he was not paid anything for the milk so purchased and neither he was given notice nor the witnesses signed in his presence. He denied his signatures on the sample bottles. He, how ever, admitted that he had received a copy of the report of the Public Analyst by registered post, but added that the case has been filed in order to harass him that his signatures were obtained by the Inspector saying that he had been cited as a witness in some case. In the tiral that followed, the accused was guilty under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act, convicted there under and sentenced to undergo aforesaid punishment by the learned Magistrate vide his judgment dated 29-6-1982. The accused preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence which was heard by the learned Sessions Judge who vide his judgment dated 11-8-1982 dismissed the same. In the appeal before the Sessions Judge, only point urged on behalf of the accused was that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act be given to the accused as he was less than 18 years of age. The said contention was repelled and the accused was not given the benefit of Section 20-AA of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11-8-1982 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, against the aforesaid judgment, the present revi sion has been filed before this Court.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, Only point urged by the learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the report of the public Analyst, Milk facts were found to be 5. 2% and non fatty solids to be 7. 6% in the sample of the milk. According to him, as per the standard laid dawn in the Rules under the Act, the Milk fats should be at least 4. 5% while Non-Fatty Solids have to be 8. 5% and so the Milk fats were more than the prescribed standard in the sample purchased by the Food Inspector. According to him, Non-Fatty Solids were deficient by 11% which maybe ignored, in view of the fact that the Milk Fats were more than the requisite percentage. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on two cases of this Court cited as Ram Swaroop v. State, 1979 (1) TFA 86 (Alld) and Dhani Ram v. State, 1972 (1) 107 (All ). I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the aforesaid cases. I am afraid, I do not agree with the learned counsel for the applicant. There is a full Bench decision of this Court cited as 1978 (1) FAC 63-Prem Das v. State, wherein it has been clearly held that "since in the instant case, the per centage of Non-Fatty Solids less than prescribed minimum for the Cow Milk, the mixture of cow milk and Buffalo milk was adulterated within the meaning of Section (1) (i) of the Act and the accused was guilty under Section 16 of the Act. The decision of the Single Judge on this aspect cannot thus overrule the aforesaid Full Bench decision which holds good unless it is overruled by a larger Bench. In both the decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, Hon'ble M. P. Saxena, J. held that if the fatty contents are alright and sample is deficient only in non-fatty solids, it will not necessarily mean that the sample was adulterated. With respect to the Judgments of Hon'ble M. P. Saxena, J. , I am of the view that in view of the Full Bench decision in Prem Das case (supra) the decision of single Judge cannot be deemed to be of any help to the applicant where the standards are prescribed by the Rules under the Act, a sample has to come up to those standards and any deficiency either in Milk Fats or in the non-fatty solids would amount to adulteration within the meaning of the Act and for that there can be no escape. Such contention was also repelled by the Apex Court in Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Hazara Singh, 1975 (1) FAC 271, wherein it was observed as: The standard fixed under the Act is one that is certain, if it is varied to any extent, the certainty of a general standard would be replaced by the vagaries of a fluctuating standard. The disadvantages of the resulting unpredictability, uncertainty and impossibility of arriving at fair and consistent decisions are great. ";