Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. In both the Criminal Appeals before the Sessions Court the accused had successfully relied on the decision in Arvindbhai's case. Criminal Appeal No. 752/67 to which we adverted earlier. It was contended by the accused in the appeals that inasmuch as there was no independent evidence adduced by the prosecution as to the contents of the bottle used by the Food Inspector as the bottle of formalin, and from which he took the formalin to be added to the milk samples it must be found that the prosecution had failed to prove the addition of formalin and therefore acquittal was called for. This plea succeeded in the light of the approach made by the earlier Division Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 752 of 1967. The question before us is whether this approach is correct or whether it calls for any clarification or better statement. That is what we will attempt to do in answering the question now referred to us.

8. It may be useful for the purpose of this case to consider the process of decomposition of milk and the role played by formalin in retarding that process so as to retain the sample in a condition fit for analysis. This may be necessary to understand the degree of importance or the significance of the addition of formalin to the milk sample. Decomposition of milk is evidently on account of the bacteria present therein. Lactic acid organisms which are present in milk absorb food and emit acids as waste into the milk rapidly leading to the decomposition of the milk. To a considerable extent the speed with which this process would operate depends on the temperature at which the milk is kept. Temperature above 60 F is said to be conducive to easy multiplication of bacteria. This process of bacterial growth would be kept in check by the addition of formalin, the effectiveness of such check depending upon the quantity of the formalin added, of course, with no added effect by reason of addition beyond a particular strength and quantity of such formalin.

Whichever method is used, it is advisable that the laboratory should be situated adjacent to the district concerned, in order to prevent any delay in transmitting samples...it would appear highly desirable that every Council should provide its own laboratory and not rely on testing being carried out by outside bodies as so often is the case.
(9) As regards the fat content of milk, the learned authors observed as follows at p. 394:
It is important to remember that the Sale of Milk Regulations, 1939, provides that a sample of milk containing less than 3 per cent, of fat or less than 8.5 per cent, of other solids is to be presumed, for the purpose of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, not to be genuine until the contrary is proved. This limit for fat is exceedingly low when modern scientific principles of farming are considered as the average fat content of milk from a mixed herd rarely falls below 3.5 per cent. Milk of individual animals, however, frequently fails to reach the standard fixed, this discrepancy being very noticeable amongst pedigree animals from which it might be expected that milk would be of the highest obtainable standard. Because of these variations and to prevent injustice, provision has been made for 'appeal to the cow' samples to be taken when necessary. Should such samples fall below the specified standard, an appeal may be allowed.
Thus, the mere fact that fat and non-fat solids in any given sample of milk are below those prescribed does not lead to the inevitable inference of adulteration. In this case there is evidence to show that there was 'an appeal to the she-buffalo' (if I may so put it) and that the sample of milk taken at the instance of the owner of the buffalo gave an analysis which showed fat and non-fat solids to be well below the prescribed percentages. In England, therefore, 'the appeal' would have been allowed. Here too that should be done aqd for identical reasons.