JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal, by the State of Rajasthan under section 378 Criminal Procedure Code, is directed against the judgment dated 25.1.82 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Udaipur acquitting respondent Ramlal under section 7/16, P.F. Act, 1954. 2. The relevant facts are these. On 9.10.78 at 8.45 A.M. Shri Hari Shanker, Food Inspector, P.W.1 noticed respondent Ramlal on a motor cycle selling milk from a drum. He purchased 660 mis. of milk from the respondent for analysis and sealed the same in three bottles as per rules. One sealed bottle was sent to Public Analyst, who on analysis, opined vide report Ex.P-6 that the sample was adulterated by reason of its containing about 25% of added water. After obtaining the sanction for prosecution, Shri Hari Shanker filed complaint against Ram Lal respondent. To the accusation read over to the respondent, he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined P.W.1 Hari Shanker and P.W.2 Madanlal. Accused respondent in his statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code came out with the case that the milk, which he was carrying, was of she-camel and he had even told the Inspector that the milk was of she-camel. He even entered into witness box, and examined Kanhaiyalal, Veterinary Surgeon. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded acquittal of the respondent on the ground that the milk was of she-camel and there was no standard prescribed in the Rules for she-camel milk. 3. Mr. Kalla, learned P.P. pointing out that the sample of milk taken from the respondent did not tally with the standard prescribed for milk at item No. A.11.01.11 of Appendix 'B' appended to P.F. Rules, 1955 and it contained 25% of added water, contended that the respondent ought to have been convicted. Pointing out that there was no indication on the container that the milk was of she-camel, he submitted that even on assuming that it was of she-camel the respondent was liable to be convicted as it contained added water. 4. Mr. Mathur, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the trial court. 5. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. The standard for milk has been given at item No. A.11.01.11 of the Appendix appended to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The standards have been prescribed for buffalo milk, cow milk, goat or sheep milk and mixed milk. 5. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. The standard for milk has been given at item No. A.11.01.11 of the Appendix appended to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The standards have been prescribed for buffalo milk, cow milk, goat or sheep milk and mixed milk. The contents of the milk, reported in Ex.P-6, do not tally with the milk of any animal stated at item No. A.11.01.11. The solid non fat was only 6.74% which could not be less than 8.5% in any case. The Public Analyst also found that there was 25% of added water in the sample. 6. Section 2(ia)(m) of the Act of 1954 provides that if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, is to be considered adulterated notwithstanding it did not render the article injurious to health. In the instant case, even if for argument's sake it is assumed that the milk of she-camel was not injurious to helath it can not be said that offence was not committed by the respondent, as the purity of milk fell below the prescribed standard. It is not material that no standard has been provided in the Appendix for she-camel milk. On the contrary this fact shows that she-camel milk has not been considered fit for human consumption. The Legislature has taken care to include milk of such animals which is ordinarily used by human beings. The non-inclusion of she-camel milk by itself shows that such milk cannot be sold for human consumption. 7. Apart from that, it cannot be accepted that on the container it was written that the milk was of she-camel. No question has been asked to Hari Shanker that there was something written on the container. P.W.2 Madanlal, Motbir, of course, says that it was written on the container that it contained she-camel milk, but this part of the statement of Madanlal cannot be believed as this fact is neither recorded in the memorandum Ex.P-3 nor a question was asked to the Food Inspector that something was written on the container. It is obvious that Madanlal, in order to help the accused, has given this part of the statement in his cross-examination. It is obvious that Madanlal, in order to help the accused, has given this part of the statement in his cross-examination. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed grave error in not accepting the request of the P.P. to declare the witness hostile. The reason recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for refusing the request of the A.P.P. was that in the memo Ex.P-3 kind of milk was not recorded. This was rather a strong circumstance in favour of the prosecution. Had something been written on the container a mention of that fact would have found place in the memo Ex.P-3. Even in the receipt Ex.P-1 passed by the respondent it was not mentioned that he sold she-camel milk to the Food Inspector. It is significant to point out that the respondent is an educated person and it cannot be said that he was not aware as to what was written in the receipt. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed grave error in relying on the testimony of Madanlal to hold that the accused respondent had told the Food Inspector that the drum contained she-camel milk. 8. As to the statement of Kanhaiyalal, D.W. 2 Veterinary Surgeon, suffice it to say, he has come just to help the respondent. He admits that he was not expert of the subject and was not appointed as expert by the Government of India or the State Government. He also admits that he has given the certificate for the first time that the she-camel milk is not injurious to health. He further admits that he has never analysed the milk of she-camel. The facts which have been emerged in his cross-examination clearly indicate that he is not an expert on the milk and his testimony does not help the respondent. 9. Apart from that, under Rule 44 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 sale of milk which contains any added water is prohibited. Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 provides that no person shall sell any article of food in contravention of any provision of the Act or of any rule made thereunder. Thus, the contravention of Rule 44 is also an offence under section 7 of the P.F. Act, 1954. Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 provides that no person shall sell any article of food in contravention of any provision of the Act or of any rule made thereunder. Thus, the contravention of Rule 44 is also an offence under section 7 of the P.F. Act, 1954. That being so, on the sole ground that the milk contained added water the charge under section 16 read with Section 11 of the P.F. Act is fully established against the respondent. 10. It has not been pointed out that the Food Inspector had violated the provisions of the Act or Rules while taking sample and sending it to the Public Analyst. By the testimony of Harishanker it is borne out that he had taken the sample after steering the milk. The sample of milk was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst. Therefore, the charge against the respondent is fully established. The trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the respondent. 11. As to the quantum of sentence the contention of Mr. Mathur was that the sample was taken more than 20 years ago and therefore the appellant may not be sent to prison and only sentence of fine may be imposed. The learned Public Prosecutor's contention was that no sympathy should be shown to the respondent who was found selling she-camel milk which was not meant for human consumption. under section 16 of the P.F. Act a minimum sentence of imprisonment for a term of 6 months is provided for the offence. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Pawan Kumar (1998(8) SCC-521) did not approve the reduction of the substantive sentence by the High Court in a matter of adulteration which was a 16 years old case and enhanced the sentence of the accused to six months imprisonment. In the instant case, not only that the milk was found to be adulterated by reason of its containing 25% of added water but even according to the respondent himself the milk, which he had exposed for sale was of she-camel. There cannot be any sympathy for such a person. 12. Consequently, the appeal succeeds. The respondent is convicted under section 16 read with See.7 of the P.F. Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. There cannot be any sympathy for such a person. 12. Consequently, the appeal succeeds. The respondent is convicted under section 16 read with See.7 of the P.F. Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month more. The respondent is on bail. He shall surrender before the trial court within 4 weeks, failing which the trial court shall take appropriate steps to apprehend the respondent and remand him to jail to serve out the sentence.Appeal Allowed. *******