P.D. Sharma, J. - (1.) P . R. Malhotra, Food Inspector, Sangrur, purchased 24 ounces of mixed milk (cow, buffalo and goat) as sample from Sadhu Lal, Bachana Ram, Kapur Singh, Vas Dev and Iqbal Singh accused -respondents separately on different dates and sent each of these samples to the Public Analyst for analysis under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Public Analyst found all those samples of mixed milk as adulterated. Thereafter the Food Inspector as was the procedure instituted separate complaints under section 7 read with section 16 of the Act against each of them which came up for hearing before Shri Harjit Lal Randev, Magistrate First Class, Sangrur. Sadhu Lal, Bachana Ram and Kapur Singh accused -respondents OH the basis of their alleged previous convictions under section 16 of the Act were liable to be awarded enhanced punishment under section 16(l)(a)(ii) of the Act and so in the cases against them the procedure of a warrant case was followed and in the other two cases against Vas Dev and Iqbal Singh accused -respondents the procedure of a summons case was adopted.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the accused in all the cases urged that even if the allegations set out in the complaints were to be accepted as correct then also the accused could not be convicted in view of the law as laid down in the case The State v. Raja Ram, (1962) 64 P.L R. 802. Till then a part of complainant's evidence had been recorded in the cases against Bachana Kara and Kapur Singh, while Iqbal Singh accused only had been examined under section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in his case and no evidence had been led in Sadhu Lal's case. The complainant's evidence had been closed in Vas Dev's case. The learned counsel's plea found favour with the trial Magistrate. He, consequently, discharged Sadhu Lal accused and acquitted the rest, The State has come up in appeal separately (Criminal Appeals Nos. 198, 200, 225, 226 and 227 of 1963 against the above orders. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide any appeal against the order of discharge, hence Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 1963 against Sadhu Lal has been treated as a revision. This judgment will dispose of all these four appeals and revision as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. Raja Rum's case relied upon by the trial Court in his impugned order laid down : - As the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, do not lay down any standards regarding mixed milk, therefore, under section 25(2) of the Act of 1954, the relevant part of the Punjab Pure Food Rules, 1930, is applicable, and further, that when mixed milk exceeds the requisite quantities of milk fat and lactose as mentioned in item (3) of the Schedule to the Punjab Food Rules 1930, it cannot be held that the milk is adulterated and the accused could not be convicted of an offence under sections 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Item (2) of the Schedule to the Punjab Pure Food Rules, 1930, as it was initially framed, provides that mixed milk is deemed to be deficient when the milk fat contents are less than 3.5 per cent, and lactose less than 4 per cent. This rule was subsequently amended on 10th October, 1945, and again on 19th September, 1952, which in its final form provides that mixed milk (cow's buffalo's and goat's) is deemed to be deficient when the milk fat content* are less than 5.0 per cent, or milk solids not fat 8.6 per cent, or both. The amended rule was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges who decided Raja Ram's case and so they laid down the standard for determining purity or otherwise nature of mixed milk on the basis of a spent up provision. The trial Magistrate was not justified in relying on the same while passing the impugned orders. Furthermore, the Punjab Pure Food Act, 1929, and the rules made there under were at no time applicable to the areas comprising erstwhile Patiala and East Punjab States Union. The Patiala Pure Food Act, 1998 Bk., and the rules made there under governed the said area. Entry No. 4 in the schedule under rule 3 of the above rules runs as under: - JUDGEMENT_15_LAWS(P&H)12_1963.htm The learned counsel for the State maintained that as the rules framed under the provisions of the Act do not lay down any standards regarding mixed milk, therefore, under section 25(2) of the said Act the relevant part of the Patiala Pure Food Rules, 1998 Bk., is in force and as the samples of milk obtained from the five accused -respondents contained either milk fat less than 5.0 per cent or milk solids not fat less than 8.6 per cent, the accused -respondents were liable to be punished under section 7 read with section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. The learned counsel for the accused -respondents, however, maintained that the Patiala Pure Food Rules, 1998 Bk., stood repealed in entirety with the coming into force of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and in this connection he referred to section 25(2) of the Act which runs as: 25.(2) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of any corresponding law all rules, regulations and bye -laws relating to the prevention of adulteration of food, made under such corresponding law and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall except where and so far as they are inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of this Act, continue in force until altered, amended or repealed by rules made under this Act. A careful perusal of the above provision of law will show that all rules, regulations and bye -laws relating to the prevention of adulteration of food made under such corresponding law and in force immediately before the commencement of the Act, shall, except where and so far as they are inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the Act continue in force until altered, amended or repealed by rules made under the Act. This provision saved entry No. 4 in the Schedule to rule 3 of the Patiala Pure Food Rules, 1998 Bk., because no corresponding provision exists about the mixed milk in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The learned counsel for the accused -respondents further contended that the above entry related to mixed milk (cow's, buffalo's or goat's) and not (cow's, buffalo's and goat's), therefore, standard of purity of mixed milk incorporated therein could not be made applicable to the cases of the five accused -respondents. I am not inclined to agree with him because in all fairness, the word "or" can be read as "and" to give the entry a rational meaning. This can be done while interpreting statutes and rules, vide, Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (Eleventh Edition; page 229. Consequently, the said entry in the Patiala Pure Food Rules, 1998 Bk., relating to mixed milk governed the case of the five accused -respondents.
(3.) FOR the above reasons all the four appeals and the revision petition are accepted. Vas Dev accused -respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 1963 is convicted under section 16(l)(a) of the Act and sentenced to the payment of a fine of Rs. 500/ - or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The other four cases are remanded to the trial Magistrate for further proceedings according to law as indicated above.;