M.S.Gujral, J. - (1.) Noor Jamal respondent was convicted under Sec. 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathankot, dated 4th May, 1971, but his conviction and sentence were set aside by the Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, by his order dated 16th Aug., 1971. The acquittal was recorded for the reason that the deficiency in the non-fatty solids was marginal and basing himself on a decision of this Court in Mehar Chand Vs. The State, Cr. Rev. No. 510 of 1968, D/d. 17.3.1970 the learned Sessions Judge concluded that the deficiency could be ignored. The State has challenged this acquittal through the present appeal. In a recent judgment in Municipal Committee, Amritsar Vs. Hazara Singh, 1975 FAJ 297 the Supreme Court explained the ratio of the decision in Malwa Co-operative Milk Union Ltd. Vs. Biharilal and another, Cr. A. Nos. 235 and 236 of 1964, D/d. 14.8.1967 and ruled that it was not intended to lay down that if the deficiency was negligible it ought to be ignored. It was further ruled as under:- "Indeed, this Court's decision cited above discloses that Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was) was not laying down the law that minimal deficiencies in the milk components justified acquittal in food adulteration cases." While explaining the observations in Malwa Co-operative Milk Union Ltd. it was ruled as under:- "Such was the ratio, but in the course of the judgment, Hidayatullah, J. to drive home the point that the case itself was so marginal, referred to the microscopic difference from the set standard. To distort that passage, tear it out of context and devise a new defence out of it in respect of food adulteration cases, is to be grossly unjust to the judgment." It is, therefore, clear that the view taken in Mehar Chand's case is no longer available, for basing the acquittal and that the view of law as enunciated in The State of Punjab Vs. Teja Singh, 1977 FAJ 237, will hold the field. The acquittal of the respondent is, therefore, clearly illegal and is consequently set aside.
(2.) On behalf of the respondent no argument was addressed with regard to the merits of the case and the principal contention raised was that more than five years had passed and that he should not be sent back to jail. In support of this argument, reference was also made to the fact that he was a petty milk-vendor and that the deficiency was in non-fatty solids and not in milk fat. Keeping all these circumstances in view, we find that the interests of justice would be fairly met if the term of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone, but the sentence of fine is maintained. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal of the State, therefore, succeeds to the extent indicated above. Appeal partly allowed.;