The sale of milk that does not meet the prescribed standards for milk fat and milk solid not fat separately constitutes adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from the judgment of Shri C. D. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi dated 29-10-69 whereby Shri Ram respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 7116 of prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 framed against him on account of the complaint filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

( 2 ) SRI Ram had a shop where milk and curd were sold in Gali Bahuji, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi. Shri V. N. Sharma, a Food Inspector visited that shop at 7. 00 A. M. on 19th April, 1969 and purchased from Sri Ram 660 MI. of Cow s milk for purposes of analysis against payment of 90 P. , the price of the said quantity of milk. The sample of milk so purchased was divided into three equal parts and put in three clean and dry bottles which were properly sealed after addition of the requisite 18 drops of formalin per bottle. One of the three sealed bottles was given to Siri Ram and another was delivered to the Public Analyst for test. The milk sold by the shopkeeper was claimed by him to be cow s milk and it was required, accordingly to the standards laid down by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, to contain not Jess than 3. 5 per cent milk fat and not less than 8. 5 per cent milk solid not fat. The Public Analyst, however, found that although the fat content of the milk was 5 per cent, the other solid was only 7. 14 per cent. The deficiency in the non-fat solid spelt out 16 per cent adulteration. In that context a complaint was lodged by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the vendor of the milk, Siri Ram.

( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate who tried and disposed of the complaint was of the view that since the total solids found in the sample were more than the prescribed minimum of 12 per cent, the fat content being much in excess of the prescribed minimum i. e. 3. 5 per cent, it was quite probable that the Public Analyst was not able to isolate the fat contents so successfully as to have left no scope for slight variation as found in the sample and proceeding of this presumption gave the accused benefit of doubt and acquitted him.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has urged before this Court that the reasoning adopted by the learned magistrate was inherently faulty and his reliance on Supreme Court s decision in Malwa Co-operative Milk Union Ltd. . Indore and others Vs. Biharilal and another, since reported as 1973 Food Adulteration Cases 375, was misconceived. It is to be borne in mind that according to Siri Ram s own showing the milk which he sold was cow s milk and this type of milk, if sold in Delhi, must contain as per item A. 11. 01. 11 in appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, 3. 5 percent minimum percent milk fat and 8. 5 minimum per cent milk solid not fat. This standard of quality laid down by the Central Government in excerise of its powers under clause (b) sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in consultation with the Central Committee for Food Standards constituted under Section 3 of the said Act prescribes the minimum percentage of milk fat and milk solid not fat independently of each other and compensation of deficiency in one constituent by excess of the other is not contemplated. Otherwise it would have sufficed to specify the total minimum solid content of a variety of milk, and mention of the two types of solid would not have been necessary. In determining whether a disputed sample of milk is or is not up to the mark, the courts have to look to the statutory standards set down by the Rules and not to improvise any rough and ready standards of their own. If this approach is not adopted not only the opinion of the Public Analyst will lose its value, the provision in section 13 (2) for analysis by the Central Food Laboratory will also become more or less redundant. The learned trial magistrate purported to act in the light of Malwa Co-operative Milk Union case