The Analyst's certificate, although admissible as evidence, should be supported by factual data and expert evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Sale of Adulterated Milk - S.17(1) read with S.7 - S.2(i) - S.2(xii) - R.5 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R.44 of the Rules - S.13(5) - Expert Opinion and Evidence
Fact of the Case:

The City Corporation of Trivandrum appealed against the acquittal of respondents 1 & 2 for selling buffalo milk containing added water, in violation of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Analyst's certificate, although admissible as evidence, was not conclusive proof of the addition of water to the milk. The court emphasized the need for factual data in the certificate and the importance of expert evidence to support the opinion of the Analyst.
Issues: The key issue was whether the Analyst's certificate alone was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused for selling adulterated milk containing added water.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Analyst's opinion, although relevant, should be supported by factual data and expert evidence. The court emphasized the need for the Analyst to provide a full and complete report, and for the prosecution to call the Analyst as a witness to support the opinion.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the respondents due to the lack of substantial evidence and compelling reasons to set aside the order of acquittal.

Judgment :-

1. This is an appeal by the City Corporation of Trivandrum against the order of the Corporation First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum, acquitting respondents 1 & 2 of the offence under S.17 (1) read with S.7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Act 37 of 1954.

2. On 29-1-60 the 2nd respondent brought for sale buffalo milk at the Puthenchantha Co-operative Milk Supplies Union. Pw.1 the Food Inspector of the Corporation purchased 24 oz., of milk, after informing him that it was for sampling. Ex-P.1 is the voucher for the purchase. It was duly sampled and one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst. His report Ex-P. 4 showed that the sample contained not less than 7% of added water. On the basis of this report the 2nd respondent who had actually sold the milk and the 1st respondent who is the Secretary of the Peyad Milk Co-operative Society who had sent the milk for sale were prosecuted.

3. S.7 prohibits the sale of any adulterated food. S.2 (i) defines the word "adulterated" and it says that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if it satisfies one or the other of the conditions prescribed in sub-clauses (a) to (1). According to sub-clause (1) an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities which are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability. S.2 (xii) declares that'prescribed' means prescribed by rulers made under the Act.

In exercise of the powers, conferred by sub-section (2) of S.4 and sub-s. (1) of S.23 of the Act, the Central Government has made rules prescribing, inter alia, the standards of quality of different articles of food. R.5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 lays down that standards of quality of various articles of food specified in appendix B to the Rules are as defined in that appendix. Appendix B prescribes among others the standards of quality for cow's milk and buffalo milk. Rule A. 11.01.02 of Appendix B lays down that buffalo milk shall contain not less than 5.0 per cent of milk fat and the milk solids other than milk fat shall be not less than 9 per cent.

If the quality of purity of butter falls below the standard prescribed by the said rules or its constituents are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability, it could be taken as adulterated within the meaning of. S.2 of the Act.

4. In this case the Analyst's report shows that the milk which was seized and analysed has conformed to the standards fixed in Appendix B to the Rules. But that alone is not sufficient. By sub-cl. (m) of S.23 (1) the Central Government is empowered to make rules for prohibiting or regulating addition of any water to any article of food and the sale of any article of food to which such addition has been made. R.44 of the Rules provides that no person shall sell milk which contains any added water. The case for the prosecution is that even though the milk conforms to the prescribed standard the report of the Analyst showed that the sample contained not less than 7% of added water and therefore the respondents are guilty of the offence charged as they have sold milk with added water in contravention of R.44 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.

5. The only evidence that was placed before the court other than the formal evidence of purchase and sampling is the certificate of the Public Analyst and the question for decision is whether on that report 'alone it could be found that water had been added and that the accused is guilty of the offence charged.

The certificate Ex-P. 4 is in these words:

"I further certify that I have analysed the aforementioned sample, and declare the result of my analysis to be as follows:

Solids-not-fat .... 9.0 per cent

Fat .... 5.4 per cent

Freezing-point (Hortvet's Method) .... 0.49°C and am "of the opinion that the said sample contains not less than seven percent (7%) of added water as calculated from the f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis