Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohamad Ali @ Saif Ali vs State Of Punjab on 1 April, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043585
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRR-980-2008(O&M)
Reserved on: 26.03.2025
Pronounced on: 01.04.2025
****
MOHAMAD ALI @ SAIF ALI
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB
. . . . Respondent
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
****
Argued by: - Mr. M.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Accused Mohamad Ali @ Saif Ali (petitioner herein) has been convicted by the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dasuya, under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 vide judgment dated 24.07.2002. Vide a Separate order of the even date, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of ₹1000/- with default sentence of one month simple imprisonment for committing the said offence. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur vide his judgment dated 08.05.2008.
2. Against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision. This revision admitted on 26.05.2008, and bail was granted to the petitioner on 01.07.2008.
3. As per prosecution version, on 11.10.1995, Government Food Inspector Dr. Vijay Kumar accompanied by Dr. A.S. Ansal intercepted the accused and found him in possession of 150 kgs of milk contained in four aluminum drums, meant for human consumption and public sale. Samples were drawn from the said milk after making all necessary legal requirements 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 03-04-2025 03:03:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043585 CRR-980-2008 2025:PHHC: 043585 and on analysis from the Public Analyst, Punjab, the sample was found to be adulterated, inasmuch as the milk was found to be deficient by 2% in 'milk fat' and by 21% in 'milk-solid not fat'. Legal requirements were completed and then prosecution was launched. After trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced, as per the details given earlier.
4.1 The only plea, as raised before this Court by ld. counsel for the petitioner is that as per the report of the Public Analyst, Punjab, the sample was analyzed, as if it was of buffalo milk. The milk has been declared to be adulterated on the basis of the standards of buffalo milk, though it was cow milk. It is argued by ld. counsel that it was specifically admitted by the witnesses examined by the complainant that accused had told them at the time of sampling that it was cow milk. Ld. counsel has also drawn attention towards various memos prepared at the time of sampling, which simply shows that sample of milk was drawn, without mentioning therein that as to whether it was cow milk or buffalo milk and that Public Analyst, Punjab at its own analyzed the sample, as if it was buffalo milk.
4.2 It is further argued that as per the requirements of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, the 'milk fat' in the cow milk should be 4 % and milk-solid-not-fat as 9.5 %; whereas for buffalo milk, it is 6% and 9 % respectively. Attention is drawn towards the report of Public Analyst, as per which the milk fat in the sampled milk was found to be 5%, whereas milk-solid-not-fat was found to be 7.1 %. It is urged that since it was a cow milk, therefore, the milk fat were more than the required standard of 4%, though the milk-solid-not-fat were deficient by 1.4 % only. Learned counsel has referred to State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh, 1992 (1) FACP 256, in order to contend that when the cow milk is found to be deficient in milk- solid-not-fat, it cannot be said that milk is adulterated, but only the inference that can be drawn is that cow was not properly fed. Ld. counsel contends that in these circumstances, revision deserves to be allowed by setting aside the conviction & sentence, as recorded by the Courts below.
Page 2 of 7 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 03-04-2025 03:03:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043585 CRR-980-2008 2025:PHHC: 043585
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel argued that both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence on record and rightly concluded that the milk as sold by the accused was adulterated, as milk- solid-not-fat as well as milk solids were found to be deficient comparing to the standard required for them. It is urged that at no point of time, accused told the Govt. Food Inspector, who had taken the sample that it was the cow milk, which was being sold. It is argued that it was for the accused at the time of selling the milk to inform that it was cow milk and not buffalo milk and as such, accused cannot be given any advantage on the fact that only word 'milk' is mentioned in the various memos. With these submissions, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record.
7. The first question to be determined is as to whether the milk as sold by the accused to the Govt. Food Inspector for the purpose of sampling was cow milk or buffalo milk?
8. All the documentary evidence as has been placed on record in the form of receipt Ex.P8, whereby sample milk was sold to the Govt. Food Inspector, form VI (Ex.P7), memo (Ex.P10) and Local Health Authority Slip (Ex.P9) would reveal that only word 'milk' is mentioned and not 'cow milk' or 'buffalo milk'. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that Dr. A.S. Ansal, who was accompanying GFI Dr. Vijay Kumar, during cross examination has clearly stated that when Government Food Inspector had asked the accused regarding the nature of milk, accused had told that it was cow milk, which was intended to be purchased by the Government Food Inspector Dr. Vijay Kumar.
9. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the said statement of PW3 Dr. A.S. Ansal to be read with the various documents proved by the complainant on record, left no doubt that sample taken was that of cow milk. Ld. Appellate Court has completely fallen in error in Page 3 of 7 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 03-04-2025 03:03:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043585 CRR-980-2008 2025:PHHC: 043585 holding that onus was upon the accused to prove that milk sold by him was not of buffalo and rather, it was of cow milk. In a criminal trial, onus is always upon the prosecution/complainant, which has to prove all the ingredients of the offence.
10. As such, it was for the complainant to prove that he had taken the sample of the buffalo milk and not that of the cow milk. Had the accused told the Government Food Inspector that milk sold by him was buffalo milk, the Government Food Inspector must have mentioned the said fact in the various memos prepared by him at the spot. However, as noticed above neither on the receipt, whereby the milk was sold, nor on the LHA slip nor on Form VI nor on the recovery memo, the word 'buffalo milk' was mentioned and it was only referred as 'milk'.
11. Almost similar were the circumstances before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karamchand Vs. Municipal Corporation Delhi, 1948-1947 Supreme Court on Food Adulteration Cases 549. In that case, the Government Food Inspector was claiming that he had purchased 'toned milk' from the accused-appellant, whereas the accused was claiming that he had sold 'separata milk' or 'skimmed milk'. Confusion was created because of the reason that the Government Food Inspector and the accused-appellant did not know the language of each other, inasmuch as the accused knew Urdu and did not know English, whereas the Government Food Inspector did not know Urdu and knew English. In these circumstances, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that prosecution had failed to prove that what was sold to the Food Inspector was sold as 'toned milk' and as such, the very basis of adulteration disappeared. Setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, the appellant - accused was acquitted of the charges.
12. In the present case also, the accused-appellant is illiterate person, who had thumb-marked the various memos prepared at the time of sampling as is evident from the record. It is very much possible that he could not understand, as to what was written by the Government Food Inspector on the documents prepared at the time of sampling and that whether, GFI Page 4 of 7 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 03-04-2025 03:03:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043585 CRR-980-2008 2025:PHHC: 043585 had shown sold milk simply as 'milk' and not cow milk or buffalo milk. Once the medical officer accompanying the Government Food Inspector has admitted in his cross-examination that accused had told the Government Food Inspector that milk sold by accused was stated by him to be cow milk, so Government Food Inspector was required to mention the said fact on various memos prepared by him at the spot.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that accused had sold 'cow milk', as prosecution failed to establish that sold milk was 'buffalo milk'.
14. Proceeding further, the report Ex.P1 of the Public Analyst would reveal that on analysis of the sampled milk, the milk fat were found to be 5.9% and that of the 'milk-solids not fat' as 7.1%. The Public Analyst has reported that milk fat were deficient by 2.1%; whereas the 'milk-solids not fat' were deficient by 21 %. This report of the Public Analyst is quite misleading, as 'milk-solids not fat' are stated to be deficient by 21 %, which cannot be possible, even if standards meant for buffalo milk are taken into consideration.
15. The standards for Punjab State for cow milk and buffalo milk as per the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules are as under: -
Milk Fat Milk Solids Not Fat
Buffalo 6.0 % 9.0 %
Cow 4.0 % 8.5.0 %
Ex. - Report of 5.9 % 7.1 %
Public Analyst
16. It is, thus, clear that when the standards for cow milk are taken into consideration, the milk fat in the sampled milk was in excess of the required standard, though of course, the percentage of milk-solid-not-fat was deficient by 1.4%, inasmuch as it should have been 8.5% for cow milk, though it was found to be 7.1%.
Page 5 of 7 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 03-04-2025 03:03:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043585 CRR-980-2008 2025:PHHC: 043585
17. In Hans Raj Vs. The State of Punjab, 1980(2) Food Adulteration Cases 396, it has been held by this High Court as under: -
"When the fat content in the milk is much higher than the minimum prescribed standard, it had necessarily to be inferred that no water had been added to the milk and that the non fatty solid content below the standard prescribed could justify that either the cow from the udders of which the milk was drawn was not given the proper feed or that the Public Analyst's report was erroneous but not the inference that the milk in question was not pure".
18. Similarly in the case of Ujagar Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1980(1) FAC 432, the Public Analyst found milk fat at 5.3 % and milk solids not fat at 7.5 %. It was observed as under:-
"The percentage of milk fat and non-fatty milk solids depends on the proper feeding and 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. 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 non 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.
19. The abovesaid authorities as rendered by this Court have been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in the State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh, 1992(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 256, by holding that when the milk is found to be deficient in milk-solid-not-fat, it cannot be said that milk is adulterated but the only inference that can be drawn is that cow was not properly fed. As such, no conclusion can be arrived that accused was selling adulterated milk.
20. In the present case also, since the 'milk fat' in the sampled milk was found to be in excess of the required standard; and the only shortfall was in milk-solid-not-fat, the accused-petitioner deserves to be given the benefit of doubt, in view of the legal position as above Page 6 of 7 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 03-04-2025 03:03:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043585 CRR-980-2008 2025:PHHC: 043585
21. Apart from above, in Administrator of the City of Nagpur Vs. Laxman and another, 1948-1997 Supreme Court on Food Adulteration cases 8, acquittal of the accused was recorded, who was a small milk vendor, after noting that fat percentage was 6% as against 3.5%, which is more than the standard prescribed for cow milk. The only shortfall was that SNF was 7.3%, whereas, it should have been 8.5%. It was also noted that total solids were 13.3 %, which is again more than the satisfying standard for cow milk. In these circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere in the acquittal recorded by the trial Court by giving him the benefit of doubt.
22. In present case also, total solids of sampled milk have been found by the Public Analyst to be were 13 %, which is more than the satisfying standard for cow milk and so, for this reason also, petitioner - accused deserves to be given the benefit of doubt.
23. On account of the entire discussion as above, the present Revision is hereby accepted. The impugned judgments of the conviction and order of sentence, as recorded by the Couts below are hereby set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge.
01.04.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Vivek
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
Page 7 of 7
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 03-04-2025 03:03:01 :::