KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA,J - (1.) WHILE admitting criminal revision No. 86 of 1996, this Court had passed the following order : "The analysis of the milk sample indicated that it contained only 2.0% of the fat and 8.5% of solids not fat. Thereby the milk fell below the standard prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It was contended that the milk in question was boiled milk and no standard for boiled milk has been prescribed. On referring to the Clause A.11.01.11 of the Act which prescribes the standard for different classes of milk, I find that the standard regarding boiled buffalo milk and also in respect of boiled cow milk has been prescribed. It was claimed by the petitioner that it was boiled cow milk. In respect of boiled cow milk the standard prescribed is that it should contain 3.5% of fat and 9.0% solids not fat. The analysis shows that the milk in question has fallen below the standard. However, it was brought to my notice that the milk weighing 5 liters only was at the tea-shop of the accused, and from there the sample was taken. That raises arguable point on facts and law in so far as it pertains to the contention that the milk was not meant for sale. In view of that revision admitted."
(2.) NONE has caused appearance for the petitioner. The case has been called many times. Two contentions which have been recorded in the admission order are not tenable. The Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that argument of marginal deficiency is not available and adulterated food article should be strictly in consonance with the standards prescribed under the Act. Both the courts below have returned findings of fact that it cannot be inferred that the milk was not meant for public sale. The appellate Court below had relied upon 1985(1) RCR(Crl.) 510 Budh Ram (deceased) v. State of Haryana, and had returned following finding : "14. Appellant's counsel also urged that Dr. Ganadra Sharma has not stated that the milk was meant for public sale. However, Tek Ram P.W. 1 has specifically deposed that the milk was meant for public sale. Moreover, both these witnesses have stated that the milk had been kept at tea shop of the accused and so obviously it was meant for sale or for preparing tea for sale and in either event the appellant accused is guilty. In this behalf reference may be made to 1985(1) RCR(Crl.) 510 Budh Ram (Deceased) v. State of Haryana, a Full Bench decision of our own Hon'ble High Court. In that case it was observed that where milk, sugar or tea leaves were kept by the vendor for preparing tea for sale and not for direct sale as such but for being used in preparation of tea for being served to his customers amount to sale in terms of provisions of Section 10 (7) read with Section 2 (xiii) of the Act. So in our case purchase of milk as sample for analysis by the Food Inspector from the accused comes within the purview of Section 7 of the Act as a sale. No specific suggestion was either given to Tek Ram that the milk was not meant for public sale although he had stated that it was for public sale."
(3.) IN view of the findings of fact returned by two courts below, nothing survives in the present revision petition. However, in the present case, sample was taken on 16th October, 1988. A period of more than 19 years is going to elapse. Petitioner has suffered a protracted trial.;