It is not permissible to add the percentages of the various constituents of milk disclosed by the Public Analyst and thereafter to deduce a conclusion about the overall deficiency or otherwise of the milk from its prescribed standards. The Court is not entitled to assume a slight or reasonable margin of error in the conclusions recorded by the Public Analyst during the course of analysis of the milk. A negligible or marginal deviation from the prescribed standard laid down by the Act cannot be ignored and acquittal recorded on that basis.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. In this appeal preferred by the State of Punjab against the acquittal of the respondent on a charge under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, three salient legal issues arise, which can be conveniently formulated in the following terms :-

1. Whether it is permissible to add the percentages of the various constituents of milk disclosed by the Public Analyst and thereafter to deduce a conclusion therefrom about the overall deficiency or otherwise of the milk from its prescribed standards.

2. Whether the Court is entitled to assume a slight or reasonable margin of error in the conclusions recorded by the Public Analyst during the course of analysis of the milk ?

3. Whether a negligible or marginal deviation from the prescribed standard laid down by the Act can be ignored and acquittal recorded on that basis ?

2. For the determination of the aforementioned legal issues, it is not at all necessary to advert to the facts of the present case at the outset. It suffices to mention that the learned trial Court whilst recording the acquittal proceeded on the assumption that the possibility of some marginal error in the course of chemical analysis of the milk sample could not be ruled out. Further by referring to the percentages of fat and milk solids not fat discovered by the analyst, a conclusion has been arrived at that the deviation was of a marginal nature and, therefore, fit to be ignored.

3. The appellant State herein seriously assails the abovesaid two propositions. It is not disputed that the controversy here flows from certain observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Malwa Co-operative Milk Union Ltd., Indore V/s. Bihari Lal, 1973 FAC 375 (SC). Therein Hidayatullah, J. (as his Lordship then was), speaking for himself and Vaidialingam J. made certain passing observations, which appeared to lend support to the view that it was permissible for a Court of law to make additions of the percentages of milk fat and milk solids not fat discovered in the chemical analysis of the sample and then to conclude therefrom whether the overall adulteration and the variation from the prescribed standards was either substantial or negligible. After referring to the relevant chemical analysis it was held :-

"It would, therefore, appear that the solids in the milk should be of the order of 14% minimum. In the samples they were almost 14 per cent in the one case being only .1 per cent less and in the other .4 per cent less. The fat content appears to be more than the minimum and the non-fat solid contents to be proportionately less. It is not clear whether the analyst was able to isolate the fat content so successfully as not to have left room for this slight variation. The variation was thus border-line. What is generally extracted is cream and not the other solids."

4. It was also opined that perfection cannot be attributed to the work of the analyst and it was possible that a slight error in the calculation or in the isolation of fat may be made and the ultimate conclusion arrived at was that the variations found in the contents of the milk were not so great as to merit conviction.

5. On the aforementioned premises along with others, the Supreme Court reversed the judgement of the learned Single Judge ordering re-trial on the revisional side and upheld the acquittal recorded by the trial Court.

6. The judgement in the Malwa Co-operative Milk Unions case (1973 FAC 375) (SC) was rendered on 14th August, 1967. Inevitably it was followed by various High Courts in India. But it is neither possible nor necessary to make a reference to all these decisions. Confining myself to this Court, it may be recollected that Sarkaria J., speaking for the Division Bench in Municipal Committee, Amritsar V/s. Karam Singh, 1971-73 Pun LR 846 relied on the abovementioned Supreme Court judgement to hold that the milk fat in excess of the prescribed percentage can set off the deficiency discovered in the