IMPORTANT POINT
Camel milk is fit for human consumption.

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 Inspector had purchased milk from the appellant on 9.10.1978. He took sample therewith on the spot. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the sample was examined and found to contain 25% of added water and that the milk fat was 4.1% and the milk solid non-fat was 6.74%. After the prosecution evidence was completed in the trial Court appellant offered himself to be examined as a witness. In his evidence he did not dispute the fact that Food Inspector purchased milk from him nor the stand of the Food Inspector that sampling was done in his presence. However, appellant took the stand that it was milk of camel which was edible and that he did not add water to it. His defence was that no standard was fixed for camel s milk and hence he is not liable to be convicted on the strength of the report of the Public Analyst.

4. It is an unnecessary exercise to discuss whether the milk sold by the appellant was camel s milk or any other class of milk. In this case the prosecution did not suggest what class of milk had been sold to the Food Inspector. Hence we have to proceed on the assumption that the milk sold by the appellant was camel s milk. Appellant opted to give defence evidence on the impression that the charge which he was called upon to face was that he sold milk which was not usable for human consumption.

5. Part III of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short the Rules ) contains "Definitions and Standards of Quality" of various articles of food. Rule 5 which falls within the said Part says that "the standards of quality of various articles of food specified in Appendix B to these Rules are as defined in that appendix". Milk is defined in Item A.11.01.01 of Appendix B as "the normal mammary secretion derived from complete milking of healthy milch animal without either addition thereto or extraction therefrom". But it shall be free from colostrum." The above definition does not differentiate between milk of different animals. Hence it is clear that camel s milk also would fall within the amplitude of the said definition. The question whether the camel milk can be consumed by human beings as a food article need not vex us much, for, the Food Inspector in this case took the sample on the assumption that it was a food article. If it was not a food article the Food Inspector had no power to take sample therefrom. Section 10 of the Act confers power on the Food Inspector to take sample of "any article of food". "Food" is defined in Section 2(v) as "any article used as food or drink for human consumption, other than drugs and water and includes...." (As the items included thereby are not very relevant for the purpose of this case the remaining part of the definition is om