JUDGMENT S.D. Singh, J. - This application in revision is directed against the order of the Magistrate, Shri R.C. Verma, convicting the applicant under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In appeal the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to that of three months and the amount of fine was also reduced to Rs. 500/-, but in other respects the appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Agra. 2. A sample of milk which the applicant is alleged to have been selling was taken by Sri M.L. Goyal, Food Inspector at Agra, and it was sent to the Public Analyst for an analysis in due course. The sample of milk is described in the papers relating to the taking of the sample to be a mixture of cow, buffalo and goat milks, the pro portion being half cow's milk, one-fourth buffalo's and one-fourth goat's. The Public Analyst found the sample to contain 6.2 per cent fats and 7.4 per cent non-fatty solids. 3. Rule A. 11 prescribes the standard for milk in judging its quality. Under rule 11.01.01 cow's milk shall have 3.5 per cent of milk fat and ts.5 per - cent non-fatty solids. Under rule A.l 1.01.02 buffalo milk shall have 6 per cent of fat and 9 per cent of non-fatty solids, and under rule A.l 1.01.03 goat milk shall have 3.5 per cent of fat and 9 per cent of non-fatty solids. Since the milk of which the sample was taken was a mixture of cow, buffalo and goat milks in the proportion of 2: 1: 1, the fat contents in this mixture, according to the prescribed standard, should be 4.12 per cent and non-fatty solid contents 8.65 per cent. As against this standard, the sample of milk was found to contain 6.2 per cent fats and 7.4 per cent non-fatty solids. The fat contents were therefore in excess of the required standard to the extent of near about 50 per cent while non-fatty solids were found deficient to the extent of 15 per cent. It was on the basis of these facts that the applicant was prosecuted and subsequently convicted as stated above. 4. The fat contents were therefore in excess of the required standard to the extent of near about 50 per cent while non-fatty solids were found deficient to the extent of 15 per cent. It was on the basis of these facts that the applicant was prosecuted and subsequently convicted as stated above. 4. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that the purpose behind the enactment of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was to prevent adulteration of food materials and that in this case the evidence which has come on record is clearly indicative of the fact that there was no adulteration whatsoever and if there was any deficiency of non-fatty solids it was because of natural causes and that, therefore, the applicant could not have been convicted as aforesaid. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party was that the word "adulterated" is defined in clause (i) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (to be referred to hereafter as the Act) and that the question whether or not this particular sample was adulterated will have to be looked into in the light of this definition even though there was in fact no adulteration. 6. Under clause (i) of Section 2 aforesaid an article will be deemed to be adulterated if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities which are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability. The word "prescribed" is defined in clause (xii) of Section 2 as prescribed by rules made under the Act. Section 23 empowers the Central Government to make rules defining the standards of quality for, and fixing the limits of variability permissible in respect of, and articles of food (clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 23); and it is in pursuance of this power that the Central Government has prescribed the minimum standard of milk to which reference has already been made earlier. What was, therefore, contended on behalf of the opposite party was that if the material of which sample was taken by the Food Inspector does not conform to the standard prescribed under rule A. 11 and its sub-paras as aforesaid, the milk will be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of clause (i) of Section 2 and the applicant who was selling this milk will be deemed to have been selling an adulterated food within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act and consequently liable to be convicted under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act. 7. It appears to me, however, that cither the standard prescribed by the Central Government in respect of the sample of milk is such that normally pure milk may not always keep up to it or that the analysis of the sample by the Public Analyst was faulty. As has been pointed out earlier, the sample of milk was found to contain 6.2 per cent of fat even though the prescribed standard of the same required only 4.12 per cent fat in it. This by itself would clearly indicate that there was no attempt on the part of the applicant either to adulterate the milk with the addition of water or by abstraction of its fatty contents; and if there was no adult .lion of the sample of milk by the addition of water, it becomes a little difficult to understand how non-fatty solids thereof could have to any extent been reduced by artificial means. If there was adulteration in the case by addition of water so as to reduce the non-fatty contents to the extent of 15 per cent, there should have been a reduction of fat contents of the milk also to that extent. The milk of which sample was taken was the mixture of cow, buffalo and goat'; milk. There is no reason to suppose that the milk was of a special quality in which fat contents would be very much in excess of even the required standard. The milk of which sample was taken was the mixture of cow, buffalo and goat'; milk. There is no reason to suppose that the milk was of a special quality in which fat contents would be very much in excess of even the required standard. If inspite of the fact that the fat contents were found as much as 50 per cent above the required standard, the non-fatty solids were found deficient, it would indicate that if there was any shortage of non-fatty solids, it was because the milk in its natural form was short to that extent in non-fatty solids contents and no because there was any adulteration by any human agency. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party was certainly right in contending that as the Act stands the milk will be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of clause (i) of Section 2, but if a milk, in respect of which there is reason to believe that it is pure- meaning thereby that it is sold or supplied in the form in which it is produced without any addition thereto or extraction therefrom is so declared adulterated under the provisions of the Act and its sale made punishable, that would, to my mind, be a restriction upon carrying on occupation, trade or business, freedom in respect of which is guaranteed under sub-clause (g) of clause (I) of Article 19 of the Constitution. Under clause (6) of the same Article the State is certainly entitled to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred under sub-clause (g) aforesaid, but if even the purest milk, which expression I mean the milk in its purest form without any addition or subs traction, is not under the provisions of the Act allowed to be sold or its sale is made punishable, then certainly the Act goes beyond the scope which was in view in placing it on the Statute Book and also beyond the limits of "reasonable restrictions" which the State might place on the exercise of the right to carry on an occupation, trade or business. As the preamble of the Act itself shows the purpose behind it is to prevent the adulteration of food. As the preamble of the Act itself shows the purpose behind it is to prevent the adulteration of food. If artificial standards are laid down which do not merely prevent the adulteration of food, but even hinder the sale of food stuffs which are otherwise pure, the restriction goes beyond the scope of the Act itself. In the first place, therefore the standard which has been prescribed under the rules would be beyond the scope of the authority given to the Central Government under Section 23 of the Act and even if it is believed that the rules under which the standards have been prescribed were within the rule-making authority of the Central Government, then the provisions of the Act along with the Rules, to the extent they come in -on inflict with sub-clause (g) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution and are not covered by the scope of the expression "reasonable restrictions" permitted under clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution, will have to be struck down . Unconstitutional and invalid. 9. There are, however, two alternatives possible in the instant case. Either the Public Analyst blundered in analysing the milk and on account of some error which crept in somewhere in the analysis, he found the non-fatty solids less than what tin act usually were and the milk was otherwise in accordance with the standard prescribed. The other alternative is that, if the analysis conducted by the Public Analyst was correct and no mistake was committed by him it will have to be held the standard prescribed is something which may not be always attained by every type of pure milk. The person who carries on the trade in the sale or supply of milk can certainly be expected to see and even guarantee, that the milk which is sold by him is pure milk unadulterated by the addition of any water or extraction of any ingredient therefrom. Even a person who deals in milk which is the produce of his own cows or buffaloes can at best guarantee the sale of milk is the form in which it is produced and cannot go beyond it. Even a person who deals in milk which is the produce of his own cows or buffaloes can at best guarantee the sale of milk is the form in which it is produced and cannot go beyond it. It would be hardly possible for every dealer in milk, there being innumerable types of them with different stock-in-trade, to analyse the milk which is sold by them and find out if it comes to the standard and to throw it away or at best consume it themselves, if it is found deficient even to the smallest extent. It may be stated over again, even at the risk of some repetition that the only thing which a dealer in milk can guarantee is that the milk is unadulterated and is being supplied in its normal natural form without any addition or substruction as a result of an interference by any human agency. The standard which may be prescribed must naturally be such to which milk in its purest form may conform. If it exceeds that limit, it would be something impossible to be attained and consequently not a reasonable restriction within the meaning of clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution. 10. It was suggested at the Bar that the view I am taking in the case is in conflict with the one expressed by a Full Bench of this Court in Prem Dass v. State, (A.I.R. 1961 Allahabad 590), but though even in that case the milk which was under consideration was a mixture and inspite of the fact that fat contents were found to be 5.9 per cent, the non-fatty solid contents were only 7 per cent, the question which has been discussed by me above was not raised before or considered by the Full Bench. There the only question was about the standard which was to be applied in the case of mixture of cow and buffalo milks and the manner in which the quality of the milk was to be determined. 11. Though the English law on the subject is to some extent different, reference may be made to some English decisions as they are of some relevance at least in the consideration of the question relating to the applicability of the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 12. 11. Though the English law on the subject is to some extent different, reference may be made to some English decisions as they are of some relevance at least in the consideration of the question relating to the applicability of the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 12. Hunt v. Richardson, (1916) 2 K.B. 446, is a leading case relating to the adulteration of milk. Under the Milk Regulations of 1901, prescribed under section 4 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899 : "(1) Where a sample of milk (not being milk sold as skimmed, or separated, or condensed, milk) contains less than 3 per cent of milk fat, it shall be presumed for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1899, until the contrary is proved, that the milk is not genuine, by reason of the abstraction therefrom of milk-fat, or the addition thereto of water. (2) Where a sample of milk not being milk sold as skimmed, or separated, or condensed, milk) contains less than 8.5 per cent of milk solids other than milk-fat, it shall be presumed for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1899, until the contrary is proved, that the milk is not genuine, by reason of the abstraction therefrom of milk solids other than milk-fat, or the addition thereto of water " 13. The milk which was under consideration in Hunt v. Richardson contained fat which was less than the prescribed standard and it was held by the majority of the Judges that it can even then be treated as genuine milk which was not adulterated. The milk which was under consideration in Hunt v. Richardson contained fat which was less than the prescribed standard and it was held by the majority of the Judges that it can even then be treated as genuine milk which was not adulterated. Avory, J. points out on page 453 : "Milk may vary in quality according to the breed of the cow, the nature of the feed, and the season of the year " Then on page4 54 the same learned Judge points out : "I do not decide that anything drawn from the udder of a cow is necessarily milk, but in the absence of any statutory enactment that an article shall not be deemed to be milk unless it conforms to a certain standard, I do not think that the farmer who contracts to supply new milk is bound to feed his cows artificially or prevent them drinking too much water in order to maintain or produce milk of a particular quality." 14. And though the British Parliament has legislative competence to prescribe any standard or lay down any test for judging the quality of the goods in England, the jurisdiction of the Indian Parliament in this respect is confined within the four corners of the Constitution; and if under any statute or the Rules made thereunder any standard is prescribed which comes in conflict with the fundamental rights of a citizen, the statutory law has, to that extent, to be struck down as beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament. In this particular case the enactment of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act can be justified only on the ground of reasonable restriction in the interest of general public within the meaning of clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution and a provision which, in any way, prevents a vendor from selling milk which according to him and even on the basis of the evidence forthcoming may be found to be purses in quality would necessarily be violating the freedom guaranteed under sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution. 15. The view taken in Hunt v. Richardson, (1916) 2 K.B. 446, has been referred to, though distinguished, in Bowen v. Jones (1917) 86 K.B. 802. But more or less the same view has been taken again in Kings v. Merris (1920) 3 K.B. 566. 16. 15. The view taken in Hunt v. Richardson, (1916) 2 K.B. 446, has been referred to, though distinguished, in Bowen v. Jones (1917) 86 K.B. 802. But more or less the same view has been taken again in Kings v. Merris (1920) 3 K.B. 566. 16. It is true that in this particular case the applicant did not take advantage of Section 13(2) of the Act and get the sample of milk which was with him analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, but even in the absence of any report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory all what subsection (5) of Section 13 of the Act says is that the report of the Public Analyst may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein. It does not make the report final or conclusive of the aforesaid facts. It is only the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory which is final and conclusive evidence of such facts. Under the proviso to sub-section (5) the report of the Public Analyst is not entitled to that evidentiary value. 17. Having regard to these circumstances, therefore, the revision is allowed. The conviction of the applicant under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the sentence of imprisonment and fine awarded to him thereunder are set aside. Any fine which may have already been realise I from him will be refunded to him forthwith.