JUDGMENT

BHAGWATI , J:— This appeal, by special leave, raises a short and interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows.

2. On 12th July, 1967, a raiding party headed by Dr. A. D. Kumar, the Assistant Health Officer of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and comprising inter alia Shanti Nath, Navnit Lal, H.R Sood and H. K. Bhanot, Food Inspectors intercepted a truck bearing No. DLL 1925 near Chandni Chowk, Delhi at about 7 a.m. in the morning. The truck contained twenty-five to thirty cans of cow s milk which was being carried for sale by the appellant. The raiding party took the truck inside the compound of the Municipal office and there, samples of cow s milk were taken from eight cans chosen at random by different Food Inspectors one sample being drawn from each can. Each sample was divided into three parts and after carrying out the usual formalities, one part of each sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The result of the analysis was that each sample was found to be adulterated under S. 2, sub-section (i), cl. (1) to the Act, in that the percentage of non-fat solids was lower than that prescribed by item A 11.01.01 read with Item A 11.01.11 in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The prescribed minimum percentage of non-fat solids in cow s milk in Delhi was 8.5 while the percentage found in each of the samples was below that figure. In fact, it varied from sample to sample and ranged between 5.47 and 8.06. On finding , as a result of the report of the Public Analyst, that each sample was adulterated under Section 2, sub-section (i). cl. (1), the Municipal Corporation filed four different complaints against the appellant, one in respect of four samples, the other in respect of two samples and the third and the fourth in respect of each of the remaining two Samples. The cases arising out of the first two complaints were consolidated and a single charge was framed in respect of six samples on the ground that the appellant sold to the Food Inspectors samples of adulterated cow s milk out of six cans which he was carrying for sale and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Act. Similar charges were framed in the remaining two cases, the charge in one case being for sale of sample of adulterated cow s milk out of the seventh can and the charge in the other being for sale of sample of adulterated cow s milk out of the eighth can.

3. So far as the first case is concerned, the learned Magistrate accepted the ,prosecution case, including the report of the Public Analyst and held that the appellant was guilty of selling to the Food Inspectors sample of adulterated cow s milk out of six cans carried by him. But instead of treating the sale of each sample as a distinct and separate offence the learned Magistrate regarded the sales of the six samples as forming part of the same transaction and constituting only one offence, since all the six samples were taken at the same time from the cans which the appellant was carrying in the truck, The learned Magistrate, in the view, convicted the appellant of a Single offence under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rupees 1,000 or in default to suffer imprisonment for a further period of three months. The other two cases also, in view of the report of the Public Analyst and other prosecution evidence, required in the conviction of the appellant under Section 16 read with section 7 of the Act and in each of those two cases the appellant was sentenced by the learned Magistrate to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a like, period and to pay a fine in a like amount as in the first case. The sentences of imprisonment in the three cases were, however, 197 di