G.S.CHAHAL,J - (1.) CHAND Khan petitioner, who is being prosecuted under section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has come in this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the complaint dated 16th July, 1988 and the charge-sheet dated 3rd August. 1989.
(2.) THE facts, on the basis of which the petitioner is being prosecuted as drawn from the complaint Annexure P-2 may be briefly stated. On 30th January, 1988, the Food Inspector visited the premises of the petitioner and found him in possession of forty litres of buffalo milk for public sale. After disclosing his identity he served a notice in form VI of the Act and then purchased 750 Mls of buffalo milk for Rs. 2.53 P. after stirring and making it homogeneous. This sample was then divided into three equal parts and one sample was sent to the Public Analyst who certified the sample to be deficient in milk solids not fat by of the minimum prescribed standard.
(3.) AS per report of the Chemical Examiner Annexure P.1 the milk fat was 6.9% and milk solids not fat 8.7%. On this basis the learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the fat being more than the prescribed standard and the deficiency in milk solids not fat being only marginal there could be an error in the method of taking of the sample and the sample cannot be definitely said to be adulterated. Similar situation was examined by the D.B. of this Court in State of Punjab Versus Som Nath 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 123. The Bench approved of the observations in an earlier judgment of this Court in Hans Raj v. The State of Punjab 1980(2) Food Adulteration cases 396, where it was observed: "When the fat contents in the milk is much higher than the minimum prescribed standard it has necessarily to be inferred that no water had been added to the milk and that the non-fatty solids contained below the standard prescribed could justify that either the cow from the udders of which the milk was drawn was not given the proper food or that the Public Analyst's report was erroneous but not the inference that the milk in the question was not pure." I accept the arguments of the learned counsel and conclude that even if the report of the Public Analyst may not be said to be wrong there was possibility of error in taking of the sample. I, hereby, accept this petition and quash the complaint Annexure P.2, Charge-Sheet Annexure P.3 and all consequent proceedings.;