Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 225 (PNJ)

Bhal Singh v. State of Haryana

2003-02-05

R.L.ANAND

body2003
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 23.4.1996 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar who dismissed the appeal of Shri Bhal Singh petitioner by confirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.9.1995 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, who convicted the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- which was the minimum sentence under the said Act. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to further undergo RI for a period of three months. 2. The brief facts of the case are - that on 15.4.1991 Shri Sube Singh, The Government Food Inspector along with Dr. J.S. Bhatia, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Hisar, was present in Jawahar Nagar, Hisar for food sampling when the petitioner was intercepted with 18 kilograms of cow milk in a drum on bicycle for sale. Food Inspector disclosed his identity and that of the doctor and expressed his intention to seize the sample of milk for analysis. Notice Ex.PA was given to the accused and 750 mls. of milk was purchased on payment of Rs. 3.75 vide receipt Ex.PB. The milk so purchased was put into three dry clean and empty bottles in equal share. Two drops of 40% formalin per 25 ml were put into each bottle as preservative. Spot Memo Ex.PC was prepared. Label Ex.PC/1 was pasted on each bottle. The bottles were stopped properly and sealed with the seal of Dr. J.S. Bhatia. Each bottle was wrapped in a Khaki paper and ends of the papers were pasted with gum. Paper slip issued by the Local Health Authority bearing code number and signatures was wrapped on each bottle from top to bottom. The bottles were sealed with the seal of Food Inspector and the seal of Dr. J.S. Bhatia. Thumb impressions of the accused were obtained on the bottles in such a way that half came on the paper slip and half on the wrapper on the bottle. One sealed bottle along with memo on Form VII bearing impression of the seal used was sent to the Pubic Analyst Haryana Chandigarh for analysis. J.S. Bhatia. Thumb impressions of the accused were obtained on the bottles in such a way that half came on the paper slip and half on the wrapper on the bottle. One sealed bottle along with memo on Form VII bearing impression of the seal used was sent to the Pubic Analyst Haryana Chandigarh for analysis. One copy of the memo on Form VII bearing seal impression of the seals used were sent to the Public Analyst through post separately. Two sealed bottles along with two copies of memos on Form VII bearing seal impression were deposited in a sealed packet with the Local Health Authority, Hisar. The Public Analyst Haryana vide report Ex.PE found the sample adulterated as it contained milk solids not fat 26% deficient of the minimum prescribe standards. Finding the sample not conforming to the given standard of cow milk, the present complaint was filed. 3. A regular trial was conducted against the petitioner and in order to prove the case the prosecution examined Shri Sube Singh, the Government Food Inspector as PW1 but his cross-examination could not be conducted. The prosecution also examined Dr. J.S. Bhatia PW2, Jagdish Chander Clerk as PW3. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haryana vide judgment and order dated 20.9.1995 came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. Resultantly, he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to further undergo RI for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the judgment and order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, who dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 23.4.1996. Hence the present petition. 4. I have heard Shri Tahar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Girish Agnihotri, Additional Advocate General Haryana for the respondent and with their assistance, have gone through the record of the case. 5. A legal argument was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though this ground was not taken specifically in the revision that in this case as per the report of the Public Analyst the sample contained milk fat to the extent of 4.1% and milk solids not fat contained 6.3%. Mr. 5. A legal argument was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though this ground was not taken specifically in the revision that in this case as per the report of the Public Analyst the sample contained milk fat to the extent of 4.1% and milk solids not fat contained 6.3%. Mr. Tahar Singh submitted that as "fat" in this case fulfils the prescribed standard, therefore, the deficiency in the milk solids not fat could be due to poor feed of the cattle and, in such a situation, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be based in view of the judgment of the Honble Division Bench reported in State of Punjab v. Gian Chand, 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 278. There is merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules "Appendix B" - A.11.01.11 for Cow milk in Chandigarh, Haryana and Punjab the standard laid down is that the sample must have 4% milk fat and 8.5% milk solids not fat. In the present case, the petitioner fulfils the requirement of milk fat because as per the report Ex.PE of the Public Analyst the fat was 4.1%. Only milk solids not fat were deficient to the extent of 26% of the minimum prescribed standard. The Division Bench in Gian Chands case (supra) held that if there is a deficiency in the milk solids not fat and that there is no deficiency in milk fat, in such a situation, it cannot be said that the milk was not pure. The only inference in such a case which can be drawn is that buffalo was not properly fed. The ratio of the Division Bench is fully applicable to the facts in hand. In the present case also, the standard of fat is fulfilled and the deficiency in milk solids not fat could be on account of the fact that the buffalo was not properly fed. In Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 432 it was observed as follows :- "The percentage of milk fat and non-fatty milk solids depends on the proper feeding and the health of the animal. There is a problem of non- availability of nourishing and sufficient quantity of food for the cattle, both green and otherwise. There is a problem of non- availability of nourishing and sufficient quantity of food for the cattle, both green and otherwise. The quantity of food given to an animal affects to certain extent, the quantity and quality of milk produced by it. Apparently, it is not possible to take out not fatty solids from milk without reducing or affecting the fat contents. As such in this case it cannot be said that the accused- petitioner intentionally effected any adulteration in the milk." 6. In view of the above authority, it is clear that when milk is found deficient in milk solids not fat, it cannot be said that milk is not pure but only an inference which can be drawn is that the buffalo/cow was not properly fed. 7. Hence, this petition is allowed, the impugned judgment is hereby set aside and the petitioner Shri Bhal Singh stands acquitted of the allegations made against him. Petition allowed.