Baby food prepared from skimmed milk powder is not adulterated in the absence of any standard being prescribed in Appendix B under the heading of milk and milk product for such article of food.

This is an appeal against the order passed by a Presidency Magistrate convicting the appellant under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954.

2. The prosecution case is that on June 3, 1968 the Food Inspector of the corporation of Calcutta visited a shop in the name and style of 'Bengal Trading Corporation situated at 6-A Nabin Sirkar Lane. The appellant who is the sole proprietor of the concern was present. There was also a seller present at the shop. The Inspector purchased three closed bottles containing food having inscription on the bottle as "Betraco Milk Food/Betraco Baby Food (Cow's dried milk for babies and infants) as sample for analysis being suspicious about the purity of the food product. He gave notice in writing to the seller Barun Kumar Basu. He sent one of the bottles to the Public Analyst for analysis and report, he handed over one bottle to the seller Barun Kumar Basu and he kept the third bottle with him for future reference. The Food Inspector observed all the formalities enjoined under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules made thereunder in taking the sample and gave notice in Form VI of which a copy was received by the seller Barun Kumar Basu who appended his signature on it. The Public Analyst after analysis submitted his report on the basis of the data supplied in the report that the sample was adulterated as it did not conform to the standard for dried milk to be used as infant food and also that there was no declaration given on the printed label affixed to the bottle of baby food as to whether it was rollerdried or spray-dried along with the date before which the content should be used as required under the Act and the rules made thereunder.

3. The Food Inspector after obtaining necessary sanction from the corporation Health Officer filed the complaint.

4. The defence is a plea of innocence. It is contended by the defence that the food in question was manufactured with skimmed milk and that the opinion formed by the Public Analyst that the article of food was adulterated is wrong on that account It is also challenged that the process of analysis adopted for determining iron contents was wrong and unscientific leading to inaccurate result. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case and convicted the appellant as stated before.

5. There is no controversy on the point that the Food Inspector had taken as sample three bottles containing baby food from a shop of which the appellant was the proprietor after observance of the prescribed rules. Rule 12 provides that when a Food Inspector takes a sample for the purpose of analysis he shall intimate such purpose in writing in From VI to the person from whom he takes the sample. Ext. 1 shows that a copy of From VI written by P.W. 1 A. B. Roy had been duly given to B. K. Basu, the seller, in presence of witness No. 3 Sishir Kumar Ghosh. In describing the details of the food the Food Inspector gave the description as "Betraco Milk Food/Betraco Baby Food (Cow's dried milk to be used for babies and infants)". It is, however admitted by P.W. 3 in cross-examination that there was also a declaration appearing in the printed label of the bottle that the product was defeated. The cover of the bottle was also produced in cross-examination before the Food Inspector and he admitted that such cover was on the bottle of the sample purchased by him and the label is marked Ext. A. There remains therefore no doubt on the point that the article of food though a baby food was described by the manufacturer that is the appellant in the label attached to the bottle itself that it was prepared from defeated cow's milk.

6. Mr. Basu had argued that the appellant was present at the time the sample was taken and when the seller received the copy of the document in From VI he should have mentioned about the incorrectness of the description of the article of food at that time and