( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 25-9-94 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 27-7-1984 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Pilibhit convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to fine of Rs. 1000. 00 and further convicting him under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Rule 50 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of 3 months and fine Rupees 500/ -.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the alleged offence was committed on 25-5-82 and after such a long time it would not be desirable to send the accused to jail. He contended that the Courts below committed illegality in holding that the sample of cow milk was adulterated as it contained 14. 3% solids which was more than the prescribed standard. The learned counsel contended that fatty contents were 6. 8% i. e. 3. 3% more than the prescribed standard and deficiency was with regard to non fetty solids which was marginal. He contended that as the total solids were more than the prescribed standard the only inference that will be drawn is that the Public Analyst did not take necessary precautions or the cow was not properly fed.

( 3 ) THE view taken by different Benches of Allahabad High Court right from the enactment of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been varying and unfortunately this conflict is still continuing. It would be pertinent to refer to the available decisions of only of this Court but also of larger Benches of other High Courts and lastly of the Apex Court. Before considering the views expressed in the pronouncement in regard to the controversy whether milk marginally deficient in non-fatty solids is adulterated despite the fatty solids being more than the requisite percentage, it would be convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act.

( 4 ) THE word adulterated is defined in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in Section 2 (i-a ). An article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if it is one of the categories mentioned in clauses (a) to (m ). Under clause (m) an article is adulterated if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constitutents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health; Provided that, where the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of veriability, in either case, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, then, such article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this sub-clause.

( 5 ) SUB-CLAUSE (1) provides that if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, which renders it injurious to health such article is adulterated.

( 6 ) food within the meaning of Section 2 (ii) (v) means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes- (a) any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of, human food, (b) any flavouring matter of condiments, and (c) any other article which the Central Government may, having regard to its use, nature, substance or quality, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, as food for the purposes of this Act.

( 7 ) primary food within the meaning of sub-clause (xii-a) means any article of food, being a produce of agriculture or horticulture in its natural form.

( 8 ) milk cannot be said to be primary food as it is neither produce of agriculture nor of h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document