S.S.Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) A reference to a larger Bench becomes inevitable in the present case because of the fact that the ratio of as many as three Division Bench judgments of this Court has been put in doubt in view of the observations made in Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Hazara Singh, AIR 1975 SC 1057.
(2.) FOR the limited purpose of this reference it is not necessary to advert to the facts in any great detail. Suffice it to mention that the Respondent was acquitted on a charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Primarily on the twin ground that the possibility of some marginal error in the course of the anal) sis of the sample of milk could not be ruled out and further that the overall deficiency of milk fat and milk solids not fat, was of a negligible nature and, therefore, could be ignored. The State of Punjab in this appeal directed against the acquittal seriously assails the above -said two precautions. Though the learned trial Judge did not in terms refer to the relevant judgments, it is apparent that the view he was inclined to take, flowed p(sic) from the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Malwa Co -operative Milk Union Ltd. v. Biharilal and another etc. Cr. A Nos. 235 and 236 of 1964. (Criminal Appeals Nos. 235 and 26 of 1964 decided on August 14 1967) In that case Hidayatulah J., as his Lordships then was, speaking for himself and Vaidialingam J., made certain passing observation which would undoubtedly lend support to the view that it was permissible for a Court of law to make a dictions of the percentages of milk fat and milk solids not fat, discovered by the Public Analyst from the sample and to conclude there from whether the overall adulteration of the milk and the variation from the prescribed standards was substantial or negligible. It was after resorting to this process that Hiayatullah J., observed in that particular case that the deviation from the prescribed standard laid down in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was marginal and border -line and could, therefore, be ignored. It was further observed that a slight error in calculation or in the isolation of fat might have been made by the public Analyst in the course of analysis. On the above -said premises along with others it was held that the learned Single Judge of the High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal of the Appellant and the appeal by him was allowed.
(3.) THE judgment in the Malwa Co -operative Milk Union's case was rendered on the 14th of August, 1967. It was followed by the various High Courts of India but it is not necessary here to make a reference to all those authorities. In this Court Sarkaria J. speaking for the Division Bench in Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Karam Singh, (1971)73 PLP 846, relied on the Malwa Co -operative Milk Union's case to hold that the milk fat in excess of the prescribed percentage could off -set the deficiency in milk solids not fat. Consequently he overall deficiency could be worked out by this process and if it turned out to be negligible then it could be ignored on the principle that he law does not take account of trifles. Fortified by the relevant observations made in Kiram Singh's case (supra another Division Bench of this Court reported in The Municipal Committee Amritsar v. Behari Lal, (1974)1 Cri. LT 154, followed the same and after determining the overall deficiencies in the milk by the process of the addition of various constituents it declined to set aside the acquittal on the ground that the ultimate deficiency disclosed was of a marginal nature. The above -said two authorities of this Court along with the binding precedent in Malwa Co -operative Milk Union's case have then been relied upon by my learned brother Pattar J, speaking for the Division Bench in The Municipal Committee Amritsar v. Shri Jaswant Singh, (1975)77 PLR 380. It was held therein that the percentages of the milk fat and milk solids not fat can be added up in order to determine the overall deficiency thereof and to further conclude therefrom whether the milk was adulterated or not. The argument that any such addition was not permissible was in terms rejected. It was also observed that a marginal deviation from the prescribed standard could well be ignored and condoned.;