C.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) This is a revision on behalf of Hans Raj. He was convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fcrozepor, by judgment dated July 29, 1976, for the commission of an offence under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to the payment of a fine of Rs. 1000.00 by judgment dated July 30,1976. His conviction and sentence were upheld in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, by judgement dated Aug. 2, 1977.
(2.) It is alleged against the petitioner that adulterated milk had been purchased from him on July 15, by Dr. P.L. Kalra P.W. 1, Government Food Inspector. The sample of milk when examined by the District Public-Analyst was found to be deficient in milk solids not fat. This deficiency was to the extent of 14. 1 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard. The prescribed standard was 8.5 per cent, but milk solids actually found were 7.3 per cent. However, it so happened that the milk fat was required to be 4 per cent, but instead it was found to be 6.9 per cent. On behalf of the petitioner his learned counsel has cited Sultan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1974 FAC 424. In that case as well, the fat content found in the milk was much higher than the minimum prescribed by the rules. It was held that it had necessarily to be inferred that no water had been added to the milk and in such a case the mere circumstance that non-fatty solid contained below the standard prescribed by the rules could justify the inference either that the cow from the udders of which the milk was drawn was not given the proper feed or that the Public Analysts report was erroneous, but not the inference that the milk in question, was not pure.
(3.) Besides the Food Inspector, the only other witness examined by the prosecution is Dr. K.K. Khatri P.W.2. It was in his presence that the sample of milk was purchased. He deposed that it was the Civil Surgeon, Ferozepore, who had deputed him to accompany Dr. P. L. Kalra on July 5, 1975, for the obtaining of samples in a raid to be conducted by him. It is required by section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act that the Food Inspector shall call one or more persons to be present at the time when action is taken by him for the purchase of milk which is required to be analysed. Thus Dr. K.K. Khatri was not a person of the choice of the Food Inspector and in that manner the requirements of law have not been complied with. It has further been observed that Dr. P. L. Kalra deposed that Balbir Singh, a peon, and Rup Singh, a Driver, had been directed by the Civil Surgeon to be taken along at the time of the raid. It was then admitted by the witness in his cross-examination that he took only those persons with him in relation to whom there was the verbal order of the Civil Surgeon. Thus he did not join a single witness of his own volition and it is considered to be such a case that no independent witness had been called at the time of the purchase of the milk. lam thus of the view that on the two grounds taken on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel his conviction cannot be sustained. This revision is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence, for which he was convicted by the trial Magistrate. Revision accepted.;