1. Sale of substandard curds with milk solid fat shortfall — Complaint under Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 218
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M.Punchhi : Sujata V.Manohar
K.Harikumar, S/o Karunakaran Nair
Versus
Food Inspector, Punaloor Municipality
Case No. : 121 of 1990
Date of Decision : 2/9/95
Sampling of curds requires stirring and churning to ensure homogeneity of milk solids; failure to do so can distort results. Furthermore, appellate courts should generally not interfere with a trial court's order of acquittal unless the decision is perverse.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Rules 14, 17 and 18 - Sampling of curds - Requirement of homogeneity - Stirring and churning necessary to ensure uniform consistency of milk solid non-fat and milk solid fat to determine percentages in their completeness - Failure to stir, churn, or provide a vertical cut during sampling may lead to distortion in percentage analysis - Where variation is minimal (0.06%), trial court's decision to acquit is not perverse.
(B) Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference - High Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the decision is clearly wrong or perverse.
Facts of the case:
A vendor was accused of selling substandard curds with a shortfall of milk solid fats by 0.06%. The trial court acquitted the vendor, but the High Court reversed this decision, holding the vendor guilty. The appellant contended that the sampling process was flawed as the curds were not stirred or churned before the sample was taken from the container.
Findings of Court:
The court found that for curds, stirring and churning are necessary to attain homogeneity for accurate determination of milk solid fat and non-fat percentages. The Food Inspector did not mention that the curds were stirred, churned, or given a vertical cut. Consequently, the samples were not taken in their completeness, which could lead to distortion in the analysis. Given the negligible variation of 0.06%, the trial court's acquittal was reasonable.
Issues: Whether the sampling procedure followed by the Food Inspector was sufficient to establish the substandard nature of the curds and whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: Proper sampling techniques, including stirring and churning, are essential for determining the composition of curds to ensure homogeneity. A negligible variation in milk solid fat, coupled with a flawed sampling process, justifies the trial court's decision to acquit, and such a decision should not be interfered with by the High Court.
Result: High Court's order reversed and trial court's order restored, maintaining the acquittal of the appellant.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether failure to follow sampling procedures under Rules 14, 17, and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 is material to the conviction. (Para 1 )
3. Proper stirring, churning, and vertical cutting are essential for homogeneity in curd samples to ensure accurate percentage determination and avoid distortion. (Para 1 )
4. Failure to ensure sample homogeneity through proper stirring and churning, especially when the variation is marginal, justifies the maintenance of an acquittal. (Para 1 )
5. High Court order reversed and Trial Court's order of acquittal restored. (Para 1 )
6. What procedures are necessary to ensure the accuracy of milk solid fat percentages in curd samples?
To attain homogeneity and ensure a uniform consistency of milk solid non-fat and milk solid fat, curds must be stirred and churned, and if possible, given a vertical cut. (Para 1 )
7. What is the legal consequence of taking curd samples without proper stirring or churning?
Samples not taken in their completeness may lead to distortion in the percentage of ingredients, which can undermine the reliability of the findings of substandard quality. (Para 1 )
8. When should a higher court refrain from interfering with a trial court's order of acquittal?
A higher court should not interfere in an appeal against acquittal when the trial court's decision to acquit is not fundamentally wrong, particularly in cases of marginal variation. (Para 1 )
(1) THE acquittal of the appellant was upset by the High court on the ground that the contention of the appellant before the Trial Magistrate with regard to the infraction of Rules 14, 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 was not material and that the appellant should be held guilty for selling to the Food .Inspector substandard curds in which there was a shortfall of milk solid fats to the extent of .06%. The other ground for acquittal apparently seems to have been abandoned by the appellant before the High court which was to the effect that even though churning of the curds in the container in which it was lying for sale had not been done, but that was due to the fault of the vendor-appellant and not due to any neglect of duty on behalf of the Food Inspector.We have reservations about the legal requirement of stirring and churning to be performed by the vendor. In order to attain homogeneity in curds stirring and churning, as the case may be, becomes necessary for the ingredients of milk solid non-fat and milk solid fat getting a uniform consistency in order to determine the percentage in their completeness. Besides, if possible, curds need to be given a vertical cut. In the complaint it is specifically mentioned by the Food Inspector that about 10 litres of curds were lying in the hotel of the appellant in the aluminium pot wherefrom he purchased the samples. Nowhere did he mention that the curds were stirred and churned before a sample was taken or that it was given a vertical cut and was possible to do so be it at the behest of the appellant or that of the Food Inspector. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the samples were not taken in their completeness and those parts of curds may have been taken which would in the ultimate analysis lead to some distortion in the percentage. As is evident, there was a variation of only .06% in milk solid fat. Keeping that in view, the trial court as it appears to us, was not far too wrong in recording the acquittal of the appellant. The High court should have been well-advised to leave the matter alone and not interfere in an appeal against acquittal. For these reasons, we reverse the High courts order and restore that of the trial court maintaining the acquittal of the appellant. Ordered accordingly.
