S.C. Mittal, J. - (1.) Bishan Singh was convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, under Sec. 16 (l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six monthsrigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appeal filed by Bishan Singh was dismissed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Hence, he has preferred the present revision petition.
(2.) Prosecution case as found by the two Courts below is that on 15th July, 1975 Dr. K.L. lssar purchased sample of cows milk from a container having 30 kilograms of the milk. The requisite quantity of the preservative was added to the sample which was divided into three parts. One of them was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the sample contained 6.8 percent of milk fat and 7.8 per cent of milk solid non fat. Now the relevant rule prescribing the standard of the quality of the cows milk is as follows:- "Cows milk shall contain not less than 4 per cent milk fat, milk solid non-fat shall not be less than 8.5 per cent." Since there was deficiency of 0.7 per cent in milk /solids non fat, the sample was declared adulterated and the conviction followed.
(3.) In view of the above, learned counsel for Bishan Singh vehemently urged that so far as milk fat is concerned in the sample of the milk it was highly excessive. In this view of the matter, urged the learned counsel, the deficiency of 0.7 per cent in milk solid non fat may be condoned. The argument has not impressed me, in as much as the said deficiency has made the milk of sub-standard quality and hence adulterated. Accordingly, I uphold the conviction of Bishan Singh.;