- (1.) For being found on the 6th of April, 1971, in possession of 2 kilograms of substandard cow's milk for sale, Ram Lal aged 42 years, a shop keeper of Malerkotla, who is the petitioner before me, was convicted on the 13th of December, 1971, by Shri Sarwan Singh Chahal, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhuri of an offence under Section 6(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- the sentence in default of payment of fine being rigorous imprisonment for three months. His appeal was dismissed by Shri Harbans Singh Ahluwalia, Additional Sessions Judge, Sangur, on the 23rd of September, 1972, and that is why he has come up in revision to this Court.
(2.) The percentages of milk fat and non-fatty solders in the sample of milk purchased from the petitioner by Rup Singh Food Inspector, Municipal Committee, Malerkotla (P.W.1) in the presence of Kirpal Chand (P.W.2) were found by the Public Analyst to be 3.5 and 13.5 respectively. In other words, the fat content of the milk was lower by 0.5% than the prescribed minimum.
(3.) The only contention raised on behalf of th petitioner is that the deficiency in the fat content of the milk was only marginal and that the petitioner was therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt. Support for the contention is sought from Malwa Co-operative Milk Union Limited v. Behari Lal, Criminal Appeal Nos. 235-236 of 1964, decided by the Supreme Court on the 14th of August, 1957; Municipal Committee Amritsar v. Karam Singh,1971 PunLR 846; Nanak Singh v. State,1973 CLR 65; Balwant Singh v. The State of Punjab,1973 CLR 96. In Malwa Co-operative Milk Union Limited v. Behari Lal , two samples of milk were in dispute. On of them was deficient by 0.1 per cent and the other by 0.4 per cent in non-fatty solids while their fat contents were higher than the prescribed minimum. Their Lordships refused to set aside the acquittals of the accused for the reason that they considered the deficiencies in the two samples to be marginal. They observed : "The argument of Mr. D.P. Singh that in these circumstances one would expect near perfection in the milk, may be accepted. But that does not prove that near perfection must be accepted in the work of thee analyst when the difference from the standard is only 0.1 per cent in one case, 0.4 per cent in the other. It is possible that a slight error in calculation or in isolation of fat might have been made". The ratio of their Lordships judgment was thus applied in Municipal Committee Amritsar v. Karam Singh by Sarkaria and Suri, JJ, to the case of a sample of cow's milk in which milk fat was higher by 0.6 per cent and the non-fatty solids were lower by 0.5 per cent as compared to the prescribed minimum : "* * * * * * * * * * * * it will be seen that the 'milk fat' was in excess of the prescribed percentage by 0.6 per cent, while the 'milk solids not fat' were deficient by about 0.5 per sent. Off-setting the 0.6 per cent excess of milk fat' against the 0.5 per cent deficiency of 'milk solids', the over-all deficiency works out to hardly 0.1 per cent. Since this deficiency is negligible, no grave injustice will be perpetuated if the acquittal is not set aside. In Malwa Co. operative Milk Union Limited v. Behari Lal (Criminal Appeals Nos. 235-236 of 1964, decided on 14th August, 1967), the Supreme Court refused to set aside the acquittals when there was deficiency of 0.1 per cent in one case, and 0.4 per cent in the other of the solids in the milk". In Nanak Singh v. State , a sample taken form the cow's milk in question was found to contain 6 per cent of fat and 8 per cent of non fatty solids. Relying on Malwa Co-operative Milk Union Limited v. Behari Lal , Gujral, J. acquitted the accused and in doing so observed : " * * * g * * the ratio of the decision in Malwa Co operative Milk Union's case is also applicable to the facts of the present case. The report of the Public analyst is that the milk fat was 6 percent, which was higher than the standard prescribed for cow milk, while milk solids other than fat were 8 per cent. The deficiency was only 0.5 per cent. There being no deficiency in the fat contents and the solid contents being more than the prescribed limit, it would be reasonable to conclude that the deficiency in solids other than fat was marginal and this deficiency could be due to the failure of the Public Analyst to separate the contents properly from non-fatty solids." In Balwant Singh v. The State of Punjab the sample of the cow's milk in question was found to contain 4.2 per cent of fat and 7.8 per cent of non-fatty solids. Relying upon Malwa Co-operative milk Union Limited v. Behari Lal Pattar J., held : "The rules require that the fat should be 4 per cent and milk solids other than fat should be 8.5 per cent, and this should mean that cow's milk should contain 12.5 per cent fat and milk solids other than fat, and solids found in the sample were 4.2 per cent and 7.8 per cent and it comes to 12.00 per cent. Thus there was a deficiency of 0.5 per cent in the contents of the milk. It is not clear whether the analyst was able to isolate the fat content so successfully as not to have left room for this slight variation".;