P. N. Bakshi, J. - (1.) THE applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months' RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/- by the III Additional Munsif- Magistrate, Etawah. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo 4 months' RI. His conviction and sentence has been confirmed in appeal by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah. Hence this revision, which was admitted by me on the question of sentence only.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has, however, argued this revision on merits. I have heard him. His sole contention is that according to the report of the Public Analyst, the sample which was taken from the applicant was deficient in non-fatty solid contents by about 18 percent. There was no deficiency in fatty contents. As such, he has urged that the sample of cow's milk taken from the applicant by the Food Inspector on 26th August, 1975 cannot be deemed to be adulterated and, therefore, no offence has been committed by the applicant punishable under the aforesaid Act. I have very carefully considered the submission made on behalf of the applicant's counsel. According to the report of the Public Analyst, the sample of milk contained 7 per cent non-fatty solids. Whereas, according to the standard prescribed in Uttar Pradesh, it should contain 8.5 per cent non-fatty solids. The standard of cow's milk has been fixed in the chart at S. No. A. 11. 01. 11, Appendix B, which prescribed the standard for different classes of milk. There can be no doubt that this standard has been laid down after due experimentation and consideration of the varying circumstances which affect the constituents of milk in different States in India. Under Section 2 (i) (l) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 34 of 1976, an article of food is deemed to be adulterated- "if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities which are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability ;" An article of food under section 2 (v) of the said Act means : "Any article used as food or drink for human consumption......" There can be no doubt that milk is an article of food meant for human consumption and is thus covered by the definition under section 1 (v) of the Act. Therefore, referring back to section 2 (i) (l) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard it would be deemed to be adulterated. There are, however, certain items of food for which the Act prescribes a limit of variability. Such was not the case with milk. Therefore, In order to judge whether an article of food is adulterated or not, we have to fall back on the definition of 'adulteration' as laid down in section 2 (i) (l) of the Act, It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statute that when the language 07 the Act is clear and specific, we must give effect to it whatever may be its consequences, for the words of the statute speak of the intention of the Legislature. If it was intended by the Legislature that a diminution of percentage in the non-fatty solids in milk, for whatever cause it may be, was to be treated as an exception to absolve a person from penal consequence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, there was nothing to deter the Legislature by prescribing limits of variability with regard to the existence of non-fatty solids. But no such exceptions have been provided, ft would be a different matter, if the report of the Public Analyst or the Director of the Central Drug Research Institute is not considered by the courts as satisfactory and no reliance is placed upon it. In that case the very basis of the analysis is set at naught and the result of the analysis falls to the ground. The report of the Public Analyst is evidence in the case under the provisions of the Act. The report of the Director, Central Drug Research Institute supersedes the report of the Public Analyst. The courts may come to the conclusion that either of these reports are not satisfactory and thus reject the same. But if the reports of the analysis are accepted as correct by the court, then the only criterion which has to be taken into consideration by a court in assessing the culpability of the individual is to see whether it conforms to the standard prescribed under the Appendix 'B' of the aforesaid Act. A court of law cannot read words in a statute which do not exist. It must give effect to the intention 6f the framers of the Act. The argument of inconvenience and hardship is a dangerous one and it is only admissible in construction where the meaning of the statute is obscure and there are alternative methods of construction. In my opinion, therefore, all that the court was required to see in the instant case was whether the ingredients of milk purchased from the applicant by the Food Inspector, as reported by the Public Analyst, was in conformity with the standard prescribed under the Act. If it was not, the offence was made out. It makes no difference at all whether the deficiency was in fat contents or in non- fatty solids. In either case the offence is complete. My above views are fortified by a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1975 ACC 193, Municipal Committee Amritsar v. Hazara Singh, which lays down : "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." I may also mention is passing that brother Hari Swarup, J. has also held in a decision reported in 1975 AWC 660-Rajan Lal v. State, that if there is deficiency either in the fat or non-fatty contents, the article of food would be deemed to be adulterated. A similar view has been taken by brother B. N. Katju, J. in a case reported in 1978 FA Journal 332 Kallu v. State, to the effect that even a deficiency in non- fatty solids is an adulteration.
(3.) COUNSEL for the applicant has placed reliance on some cases of our Court, of which two may be referred. one is a Division Bench case decided by brothers S. B. Malik and J. P. Chaturvedi, JJ. on 6-1-1978 in Criminal Revision No. 2041 of 1972 Pooran Singh v. State and Criminal Revision No. 2042 of 1972 Kadam Singh v. State. In those cases also there was a deficiency in the non-fatty solid contents of milk. With all respects to the learned Judges, it appears to me from a perusal of that judgment that they have not decided the question of law whether the deficiency in non-fatty contents below the prescribed standard is or is not an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In the case with which the Division Bench was dealing the percentage of milk fat was almost double of the minimum requirement of law, while the percentage of non-fatty solids was abnormally low an practically non-existent. Their Lord- shi|S pointed out to certain circumstances on the basis of which they were of the opinion that "the report of the Public Analyst was far from convincing and we have grave doubts if the analysis of the sample was properly done." It was in these circumstances that the conviction of the accused was set aside. In my view, this case is clearly distinguishable. It may also be mentioned here that in the Division Bench case referred to above, this Court made observations with regard to the improved breeding of milch cattle in India and they also observed that "the quality of milk depends not only upon the quality and quantity of food given to a buffalo, but also upon its health." I have no doubt that these considerations must have been in the minds of the framers of law, who enacted the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.;