Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

9. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the Food Inspector stirred the milk with the help of a milk measure, whereas in order to proper homogenization or sterilization of the milk, the Food Inspector should have mixed the milk with the Plunger, but he has not done so, and, therefore the milk was not properly stirred. He further argued that the milk was not properly stirred is evident from the fact that 'milk fat' of the sample commodity was found on the higher side than the prescribed standard, whereas at the same time the milk solids not fat was found less than the prescribed standard and therefore, accused is entitled to be given benefit of doubt. To fortify this argument, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in "Lekh Raj Vs. U.T. Chandigarh, Criminal Revision No. 505 of 1986." He has further argued that the 'Gerber' method which has been applied by the Public Analyst to detect the fat percentage in the sample commodity is not a sure test and in this regard he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Corporation of the City of Nagpur Vs. Neetam Manikrao Kature and Ors..1998 SCC (Cri) 564".

and "P.S. Sharma Vs. Madanlal Kasturichandji & Anr. 2002 (2) FAC
224."

11. On the other hand, Ld. SPP for complainant has argued that Gerber method to detect the fat percentage in the sample is a valid test. He further argued that sterilization of the milk in order to homogenize the same can be done with the help of a milk measure or a plunger and it depends on the structure or make of the container in which the milk is kept and in the present case the milk was properly stirred with the help of milk measure. He further argued that sample commodity was required to be conforming to the standard in respect of 'milk fat' and 'milk solids not fat' separately, whereas the sample commodity failed on account of 'milk solids not fat', which was found less than the prescribed requirement and therefore, even if total fat comes more than the prescribed requirement, same is of no avail and accused is liable to be convicted.

30. In the present case also, since there is a marginal deficiency of .45% in 'milk solids not fat' in the sample commodity, it is possible that there may be error of judgment in the analysis by the Public Analyst and for this reason also, the accused is liable to be given benefit of doubt.

31. It is also evident from the report of Public Analyst (PA) Ex. PW1/F that 'Gerber' method has been applied by the Public Analyst to detect the milk fat content of the sample. In Corporation of the City of Nagpur Vs. Neetam Manikrao Kature and Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 1998 SCC (Cri) 564 held that, " Gurber's method of analysis of the quality of food substance was not of assured quality and accuracy and as such method was not certified by the Indian Standard Institute. The Public analyst however followed Gurber's method and on the basis of such report the prosecution case was initiated. In that view of the matter the High Court did not intend to interfere with the order of acquittal". This view of acquittal of accused by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

32. In the present case, apart from the Gerber method, no other method has been applied by the Public Analyst to detect the fat content in the sample and the Gerber method of analysis being not of assured quality and accuracy, the report of Public Analyst on the basis of which present complaint has been launched against the accused cannot be relied upon.

33. In view of above reasons and discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of which must go in favour of accused. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to the accused and the accused is acquitted of the charges leveled against him.