C.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) This revision is on behalf of Ajit Singh who was convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, for the commission of an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) and then sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to the payment of a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, by Judgment dated Sept. 17, 1977.
(2.) It was on Nov. 30, 1976, that cows milk which was purchased by Dr. B.M. Bhargava, Food Inspector, fell below the prescribed standard when it was examined by the Public Analyst. The milk fat required is 4 per cent but it was found only to be 3.7 per cent. However, milk solids not fat were found to be 9.6 per cent though 8.5 per cent was required to be the minimum prescribed standard. It has thus been urged that there was only a deficiency of .3 per cent in the milk fat and this deficiency could be considered to be marginal and thus only a nominal sentence could have been passed against the petitioner. It has also been urged that more than three years have since elapsed when the petitioner committed the offence and that it would be improper to send him back to jail for undergoing the remaining part of the imprisonment as he is already on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Municipal Committee, Amritsar and another Vs. Piara Singh, 1977 CLR (Pb. & Hry.) 157. The appellate Court in that case had acquitted the accused because the deficiency of fat content was only .3 per cent. While hearing the appeal against acquittal it was remarked that the possibility of some margin of error in the analysis of sample was there. The accused was given the benefit of doubt and thus the acquittal was upheld. This ruling given by a Division Bench of this Court cannot be said to be good in law in view of the observations contained in The State of Punjab Vs. Teja Singh, 1976 (If) FAC 44. It has been held therein that the Court is not entitled to assume a slight or reasonable margin of error in the conclusions recorded by the Public Analyst during the course of the analysis of milk.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited Darshan Singh Vs. State, 1977 (II) FAC 232 and Sham Lal Vs. The State of Haryana, 1978 (11) FAC 241 , wherein certain special circumstances were taken into consideration for awarding sentences below the minimum prescribed by law. In these cases offences were respectively committed on June 24, 1967, and July 14, 1968. At that time there was scope for the award of less than the minimum sentence for adequate and special reasons. However, when the offence was committed in the instant case the law was such that no sentence less than that of imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 could be awarded for any reasons whatsoever. Lastly reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Umedmal and Lalta Prasad Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1979 (I) FAC 194. It has been observed therein that having regard to the marginal nature of the adulteration found by the Public Analyst there was sufficient room for reduction in the sentence of the appellants. There is nothing to show in the judgment as to when the offence had been committed. The reported case relates to criminal appeals instituted in the year 1975 and decided on Feb. 15, 1979. The conviction was upheld and the sentence was reduced to what had already been undergone while maintaining the sentence of fine. The date of the commission of the offence not having been made known to this Court, the views expressed in the said authority cannot govern the finding to be given in the present case. Thus even though the instant case is a hard one the sentence pissed by the Magistrate concerned and upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge has to be maintained. The revision is consequently dismissed. Revision dismissed.;