Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Ist sample :

Milk fat              = 6 per cent
Milk solids not fat   = 7.9 per cent
2nd sample : 
Milk fat              = 5.9 per cent
Milk solids not fat   = 7.7 per cent 

 

According to Rule 5 of Appendix 'B' item A.M.01.02 framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act buffalo's milk must contain milk fat 5 per cent and milk solids not fat 9 per cent in Madhya Pradesh. The said case related to the State of Madhya Pradesh. The learned Counsel relied on the following observations in that case in support of his contention : -- ' On analysis samples of Buffalo's milk found to contain milk fat 6 per cent solid not fat 7.9 per cent in first sample and milk fat 5.9 per cent and solid not -fat 7.7 per cent in Second sample, held 'it would, therefore, appear that the solids in the milk should be of the order of 14 per cent minimum. In the samples they were almost 14 per cent, In the one case being only ,1 per cent less and in the other .4 per cent less. The fat content appears to be more than the minimum and the non-fat solid contents to be proportionately less. It is not clear whether the analyst was able to isolate the fat content so successfully as not to have left room for this slight variation. The variation was thus borderline. What is generally extracted is cream and not the other solids'. Further held, 'But that does not prove that near perfection must be accepted in the work of the analyst when the difference from standard is only 1 per cent in one case and .4 per cent in the other. It is possible that a slight error in calculation or in isolation of fat might have been made. The variations in the solid contents of the milk prima facie were not so great as to merit attention even in the first instance.

 Milk fat          = 4.6 per cent
Milk solids not   = 7.7 per cent
Fat

 

This report superseded the report of the Public Analyst, Thus, according to the report of the Director, there was a deficiency of .8 per cent in the milk solids not fat. On these facts, it was held, by a Division Bench of this Court:

The Certificate of the Director, which had superseded the report of the Public Analyst, shows that in the sample, 'milk-fat' was 4,6 per cent and 'milk solids not fat' were 7.7 per cent. Ignoring the difference of 0.3 per cent regarding 'solids' between the report of the Analyst and the Certificate of the Director which difference might be due to the time-lag between the two examinations, the latter having been conducted as long as 14 months after the purchase of the sample it will be seen that the 'milk fat' was in excess of the prescribed percentage, by 0.6 per cent while the 'milk solids not fat' were deficient by about 0.5 per cent. Off setting the 0.6 per cent excess of 'milk fat' against the 0.5 per cent deficiency of 'milk-solids, the overall deficiency works out to hardly 0.1 per cent. Since this deficiency is negligible no grave injustice will be perpetuated if the acquittal is not set aside. In Malwa Co-operative Milk Union Limited v. Bihari Lal Cr. A. Nos. 235-236 of 1964, decided on 14th August, 1967 (Reported in 1973 FAC 375 (SC)), the Supreme Court refused to set aside the acquittals when there was a deficiency of 0.1 per cent in one. case, and 0,4 per cent in the other of the solids in milk. Similarly, in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Om Parkash 1970 Cri LJ 1047, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court, in an appeal by the complainant with special leave under Section 417(3) CH P. C. declined to set aside the acquittal though it had been proved that there was a deficiency of 0.8 per cent of the analysis.

Where according to the report of the Public Analyst milk fat found in the sample was 3.4 per cent instead of 4 per cent, thus deficient by 0.6 per cent, as regards milk solids not fat the sample was found to contain 8.8 per cent, i. e. 0.3 per cent in excess of the requirement prescribed by law, off setting the excess of milk solids not fat against the deficiency of milk fat the overall deficiency worked out to 0.3 per cent, held, the deficiency found in the sample being not much, no injustice would be perpetuated if the acquittal is not set aside.

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Om Parkash 1970 Cri LJ 1047 (Delhi), it was held:

In a case where the chemical analysis of a sample of milk taken six months ago revealed a deficiency of 0.3 per cent in solid fat and the accused pleaded that the deficiency was due to the delay in making the analysis:

Held, that even in addition to the fact of passage of time pleaded by the accused, the deficiency was merely marginal and negligible. The accused was entitled to the benefit or doubt.

To the same effect was the law laid down in Balwant Singh v. The State of Punjab 1973 Chand LR (Cri) 96, In that case, there was a deficiency of .7 per cent in the milk solid but the overall deficiency was .5 per cent but the constituents of the milk. Similar was the law laid down in Nanak Singh v. State 1974 F. A, C. 42 (Punj), in which case there was a deficiency of .5 per cent in milk solids,