- (1.) THIS is a reference by the District Magistrate of Sirohi dated the 16th November, 1959.
(2.) THE accused Tolu is a tea vendor. He keeps a shop for that purpose at village Las in Tehsil Sheoganj, Police Station Barlut. Dharamsingh, Food Inspector, went and inspected his shop on 20th December, 1958. THE said Inspector found a certain quantity of milk in the shop of the accused Tolu for the purpose of preparing tea and as he had no licence to sell milk or milk product, the inspector prosecuted him under sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and he was convicted by the Munsif Magistrate, Sirohi on the 8th of June 1950. A fine of Rs. 25/- only was imposed. A revision was taken to the court of the District Magistrate, Sirohi who has referred the case to this Court for enhancement of the sentence. THE learned District Magistrate has observed that this was the second conviction of the accused and a sentence of one month's imprisonment should have been awarded. The prosecution case was that the accused contravened the provision of rule 50 of the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the relevant portion of which runs as follows - "50. Conditions for Licence. No person shall manufacture, sell, stock, distribute or exhibit for sale any of the following articles of food except under a licence - (a) milk or skimmed milk or separated milk, or toned milk or reconstituted milk, (b) milk products, including khoa, cream, rabri, dahi, etc. " We have carefully examined the provision of rule 50. We find keeping milk in a tea stall for preparing tea does not come within the mischief of the said rule. The accused who runs a stall for selling tea cannot be deemed to have manufactured, sold, stocked, distributed or exhibited for sale milk, or skimmed milk, or separated milk, or toned milk or reconstituted milk or milk products, including khoa, cream, rabri, dabi etc. Tea cannot be regarded as a milk product, merely because milk may form one of its constituents. The conviction of the accused under sec. 16, therefore, for contravention of rule 50 does not appear to be proper. No licence is required under rule 50 for running a tea stall. The reference fails and the conviction of the accused under sec. 16 is set aside. Fine if collected shall be refunded to the accused. .;