Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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

9. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the FI has not properly homogenized the sample commodity and did not take a representative sample. He further argued that there is deficiency of .37% in SNF which is a marginal deficiency and there may be error of judgment while determining the value of milk solids not fat (SNF). He further argued that in this case deficiency is only in SNF but total solid are 13.43% which is higher than the satisfying standard of standardised milk. He further argued that PA has applied gerber method for determining the milk fat which is not a sure test and therefore, the accused may be acquitted. He has placed reliance on Administrator of the City of Nagpur Vs. Laxman & Anr Crl. Appeal No. 132 of 1986, Noratan Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan Arl. Appeal No. 621 of 1988 and Corporation of the City of Nagpur Vs. Neetam Manikrao Kature and Ors. 1998 SCC (Cri) 564.

10. On the other hand Ld. SPP has argued that in the present case, the sample commodity was found deficient in respect of milk solids not fat and even if total solid fat comes more than the total solids that can not be taken into consideration. He further argued that gerber method is a valid test. He concluded his arguments by saying that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused is liable to be convicted.

15. In cross­examination PW­1 has deposed that the measure of 1 litre was as per standard of weight and measurement and rod / stick was attached with the measure and the length of measure alongwith stick was about 2 ½ feet. He has further deposed that the milk was put into the sample bottles with the help of the measure and the same was not put in any other container after mixing. He was put a suggestion that Gerber method is not a reliable test to determine the milk solids not fat to which he did not admit or deny. He has denied the suggestion that sample was not made representative.

16. PW­2 in his cross­examination could not comment that if milk fat is 1% more then the milk solids not fat will reduce 1% by difference. He further could not comment that Gerber method is not a reliable method for determination of milk solids not fat. He could not comment that it is the tendency of the milk fat that if it is kept for sometime, milk fat comes at the top. He further could not comment that PA did not mix the sample commodity. He denied the suggestion that sample was not representative or that sample was not properly homogenized.