P.N. Bakshi, J.
1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 1 year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo 3 months' R. I, His conviction and sentence has been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. Hence this revision.
2. The prosecution case is that Shiv Prasad Panth, Food Inspector visited Lakhanuti Milk Collection Centre of Foremost Dairy at about 9.40 A.M. on 9th October, 1974. The milk vendors bring milk to the Centre and sell it to the Foremost Dairy. Applicant Rakam Singh had also brought milk for sale to the Foremost Dairy. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity purchased a sample of buffalo milk after payment of price. He divided it equally into three bottles in accordance with law. One of the phials was sent to the Public Analyst for his analysis. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample was deficient in fat contents by 17 per cent and in non-fatty solids by 8 per cent. The sample was judged from the statutory standard of Buffalo milk. After obtaining sanction for prosecution, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above.
3. Both the courts below have held the prosecution allegations proved on a consideration of the evidence on the record. The main argument which has been addressed by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that even according to the prosecution allegations, the applicant had brought milk for the Dairy. He was not selling milk. The Dairy would receive his milk, test and then according to its fixed standard make payment of price. It is, therefore, contended that the milk, was not meant for sale. The argument is further stretched to the extent that the milk belonged to the Foremost Dairy and the applicant was merely carrying it for delivery to the Dairy. As a matter of fact, the sample of the milk from the applicant was itself taken at the Dairy. The whole argument, therefore, was that the milk was not meant for sale,
4. I have carefully examined the argument advanced by the learned Counsel and have also perused the evidence on the record.
5. Sale has been defined under Section 2(xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as follows:
2 (xiii). Sale with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means the sale of any article of food, whether for cash or on credit or by way of exchange and whether by wholesale or retail, for human consumption or use, or for analysis, and includes an agreement for sale, an offer for sale, the- exposing for sale, or having in possession for sale of any such article, and includes also an attempt to sell any such article.
In the instant case, the accused has taken up a plea in his statement that there was an agreement between him and the Foremost dairy that the applicant would supply milk to the dairy and nobody else and that the price of the milk would be adjusted in the price of the Cow which was given to him by the Dairy and thereafter he would become the owner of the Cow. Even accepting these facts prima facie, there can be no doubt that the applicant was supplying milk to the Dairy and he was to be credited its price according to the contents of Ghee and Powder in the milk. In these circumstances, it cannot be urged that the milk was not for sale. It makes little difference whether the Cow which was milked, belonged to the accused-applicant or not. The fact of the matter is that price was credited to the accused. Even if this price was not paid in cash, it made hardly any difference, because according to the definition quoted above, sale means, a sale of article of food whether in cash or on credit or by way of exchange. Even if the defence version is accepted, the position would be that for every delivery of milk by the Milk vendor to the Foremost dairy, the price of the milk would be credited to his account and ultimately when the total amount due to him in credit covered the price of the Cow fixed by the agreement, the accused-applicant would become the owner of the Cow in exchange for the price of the milk due. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that on the defence case also the applicant was selling milk to the Dairy and he cannot be exempted from his liability, to supply unadulterated milk to the dairy,
6. Further it has been held by the Supreme Court that sale to the Food Inspector of an article of human consumption is sale within the meaning of Food Adulteration Act. It has been proved from the evidence on the record that the Food Inspector had purchased a sample of buffalo milk from the accused on payment of price, while he was at the Foremost Dairy, On analysis, this sample was found to be deficient in fat contents by 17 per cent and in non-fatty solids by 8 per cent. As such the applicant can be clearly held guilty of the commission of the offence of adulteratiaon as denned in the Act. For the reasons given above, I am convinced that the prosecution had fully established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
7. There is, however, nothing on the record to indicate that the applicant is a previous convict. The extent of adulteration was also not very heavy. In these circumstance, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice will be served by maintaining the conviction of the applicant, but by reducing the sentence of imprisonment from 1 year's R. I. to 6 months' R. I. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- is however maintained.
8. With this modification in sentence, this revision application is dismissed.