JUDGMENT

Thomas. J.-Appellant claimed that since the milk he sold was that of a she-camel he cannot be prosecuted and convicted under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short the Act ). The trial Court accepted his claim and acquitted him on the premise that no standard has been fixed under the Act for such milk. But the High Court, after holding that camel s milk could not be sold for human consumption, further held that the milk sold was not shown to be camel s milk at all. Nonetheless, learned single Judge of the High Court, on the appeal preferred by the State, convicted the appellant under Section 16(1) of the Act and sentencedhim to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.

2. Shri Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant seemed to be more concerned with that part of the judgment by which the High Court declared that camel s milk cannot be sold for human consumption. Learned counsel expressed the apprehension that the above view of the High Court would affect the people of the State of Rajasthan by and large as many of them habitually consume camel s milk.

3. Now it is a 22-year old story as the Food Inspect