JUDGEMENT
C.S. Tiwana, J. -
(1.) This revision is on behalf of Amar Nath challenging his conviction under sect on 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He was at first convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur by his judgment dated April 17, 1978, and was then awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and the payment of a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. The Sessions Judge, Sangrur, by his judgment dated January 23, 1979, upheld the conviction and the sentence.
(2.) It has been contended before me that the petitioner had only sold separated milk to the Food Inspector, and there being no standard fixed for such a milk, he was entitled to an acquittal. Admittedly, the petitioner was having in his possession 10 Kgs. of separated milk out of which a sample was obtained on June 21, 1977, at Sangrur in the morning. The Public Analyst found milk fat to be 0.2 per cent and milk solids not fat 8.2 per cent. According to the opinion expressed by him, contents of the sample were deficient in milk solids not fat by 6 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard. The standard fixed for skimmed milk by clause A. 11.01.11 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is such that milk fat is not to be more than 0.5 per cent and milk solids not fat are to be 8.7 per cent. Thus the milk was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst by considering it to be skimmed milk.
(3.) The dictionary meaning of separated milk is such milk from which cream has been separated by means of a separator. The word skimmed milk has been defined in the Oxford English Dictionary so as to mean to clear (a liquid or a liquid mass) from matter floating upon the surface, usually by means of special utensil. It also meansto deprive milk of cream by this method. The meaning of skimmed milk has been given in Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary as milk from which cream has been skimmed then skim is stated to mean to remove floating matter from the surface of. Thus in ordinary parlance, separated milk and skimmed milk are two different types of milk. The former milk is of the type from which cream has been removed by some machine and the latter would mean milk from which cream has been removed by means of some utensil. It is by taking into consideration this distinction that while prescribing the preservative in milk in rule 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules both the words separated milk and skimmed milk have been mentioned, thereby showing that these were such terms which meant different things. The learned counsel for the petitioner had laid great stress on the above said rule so as to obtain this kind of finding from this Court that separated milk being different from skimmed milk and no standard having been fixed for separated milk, the petitioner was at liberty to sell any kind of milk under the name of separated milk. This, however, is not the position of the law if we take into consideration this fact that skimmed milk has been given an artificial definition by virtue of clause A.11.01.10 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. According to the definition, skimmed milk means the product prepared from milk from which almost all the milk fat has been removed mechanically. Thus for the purpose of this clause the standard of milk fixed under the rules for skimmed milk has to be the same as meant for separated milk. The definition given in the above said clause would only govern the standard fixed for different types of milk in Appendix B of the Rules but is not available for interpretation of rule 20 of the Rules already mentioned above. In this view of the matter, the milk found from the possession of the petitioner was adulterated, as it was no other than skimmed milk. In view of the special definition of skimmed milk, no separate definition of separated milk was required, because for the purpose of interpretation of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules both the terms would mean the same kind of milk. There is thus no force in this petition and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.