S.S.DEWAN, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by the State of Haryana from the acquittal of the accused-respondent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act).
(2.) On Feb.22, 1980, the respondent sold to Ram Singh, Government Food Inspector, Jind PW. 1, 660 mls. of cow's milk. After complying with the formalities prescribed by law and adding the necessary preservative, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The Public Analyst vide his report Ex. PD found the sample to be adulterated as milk fats were 5.7% against 4% while the milk solids not - fat were 8% against 8.5% and thus the milk solids not-fat were 6% deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. The Food Inspector besides himself coming into the witness box as P.W. 1 examined Dr. R.S. Garg P. W. 2 and also proved the necessary documentary evidence with regard to the purchase of sample from the respondent. In his statement under S.313, Cr. P.C., the respondent denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity in the case but led no evidence in defence. Whilst accepting the prosecution case and the report Ex. PD as regards the analysis of the milk, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, however, relying on the decisions in Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 1 FAC 432; Hans Raj v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 FAC 396; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birinder Nath Chatterjee, 1974 FAC 223 (Delhi); Sultan Shah v. State of U.P., 1974 FAC 424; Ram Autar v. State, (1980) 2 FAC 249 (All) ; Madan Lal v. State, (1980) 2 FAC 300; Darshan Singh v. State, (1981) 1 FAC 98 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. S. Ramanathan, (1981) 1 FAC 147 along with the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Malwa Co-operative Milk Union Ltd. v. Bihari Lal, (Criminal Appeals Nos. 235 and 236 of 1964 decided on Aug. 14, 1967) reported in 1973 FAC 375, acquitted the respondent for the following reasons : - "Now coming to the report Ex. PD, it reveals that according to it the milk fats in the impugned sample were 5.7%, against 4%, while the milk solids not-fat were 8% against 8.5% and on that account the Public Analyst found that the sample was adulterated, as milk solids not-fat were 6% deficient of the minimum prescribed standards. Thus it shows that milk fat in the same was 5.7% against 4% the minimum prescribed standard and only milk solids not-fat were deficient of the minimum prescribed standard and it is the settled law that in such like cases of marginal variation, the accused is entitled to acquittal, as the percentage of milk fat and non-fatty milk solids depend on the proper feeding and the health of the animal. There is problem of non-availability of nourishing and sufficient quantity of food for the cattle, both green and otherwise and the quantity of food given to an animal affects to certain extent, the quantity and quality of milk produced by it. Moreover, apparently it is not possible to take out non-fatty solids from milk, without reducing or affecting the fat contents and for the same in such like cases it cannot be said that the accused intentionally effected any adulteration in the milk or the other inference which can be drawn is that the report of the Public Analyst was erroneous."
(3.) It is manifest from the above that the aforesaid acquittal is based on the ground that the sample conformed to the prescribed standard of the fat contents, but it was found to be deficient in non-fatty solid contents. This view of the trial Court no doubt finds support from the two single Bench decisions of this Court in Ujagar Singh's case (supra) (1980) 1 FAC 432 and Hans Raj's case (supra) (1980) 2 FAC 396 but this reasoning was squarely deprecated in a Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Teja Singh, (1976) 78 Pun LR 433. Therein the specific legal issues which fall for consideration were formulated in the following terms : - "1. Whether it is permissible to add the percentages of the various constituents of milk disclosed by the Public Analyst and thereafter to deduce a conclusion therefrom about the overall deficiency or otherwise of the milk from its prescribed standards? 2. Whether the Court is entitled to assume a slight or reasonable margin of error in the conclusion recorded by the Public Analyst during the course of analysis of the milk? 3.Whether a negligible or marginal deviation from the prescribed standard laid down by the Act can be ignored and acquittal recorded on that basis?;