1. Two persons Chooru Ram and Raja Ram were convicted by a Magistrate at Dharamsala under Sections 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954 and as both of them had previous convictions they were each given one year's rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ or in default six months' further imprisonment, Both of them were acquitted in appeal by the Sessions Judge and the State has tiled the present appeal against that order of acquittal.
2. The facts established on the record are that on the 2nd of April 1960 Raja Ram respondent, who is a supplier of milk, booked a can containing about 18 seers of milk by bus from Chamba to Jowalamukhi where Chooru Ram respondent has a shop. The can of milk was delivered at Chooru Ram's shop while C. L. Grover, a Government Food Inspector, happened to be present there. Although apparently Chooru Ram protested that he had not yet properly taken delivery of the milk the Food Inspector insisted on purchasing a sample of milk from the can and he paid for 34 Rs. of milk which were divided into three separate samples according to the provisions of the Act.
3. The milk was admittedly mixed milk i.e., mixed cow's and buffalo's milk, and the report of the analyst was to the effect that the milk contained 4.9% of milk fats and 7.8% of milk solids other than fat and his conclusion was that it was adulterated to the extent of 10% with added water. On these facts both the accused were convicted by the trial Magistrate, but the learned Sessions Judge held that Chooru Ram should be acquitted because it was not proved that the milk was adulterated with added water and Raja Ram should be acquitted because it was not properly proved that he had actually dispatched the milk.
4. In the case of Chooru Ram the ground on which adulteration was held not to have been proved was that no standards had been laid down under the Act with respect to mixed milk. This however, does not appear to be correct, and it is the case of the prosecution that the standards are those laid down in the Punjab Pure Food Rules framed in 1930 under the provisions of the Punjab Pure food Act of 1929, which rules remain in trace under Section 25(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954 as long as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of that Act or any of the rules made under it.
The rules framed under the Act of 1954 do not lay down any standards regarding mixed milk and therefore the relevant part of the Punjab Rules of 1930 is applicable. Mixed milk is mentioned at item (3) in the schedule and such milk is deemed to be deficient when the milk fat contents are less than 3.5% and lactose less than 4%. Since the milk in this case contained 4.9% of milk fat and 7.8% of milk solids other than fat (or lactose) it is quite clear that the requisite quantities of these solids considerably exceeded the requirements of the rule and it is difficult to understand how on these figures the analyst came to the conclusion that the milk was adulterated with 10% added water. Such being the case neither of the accused could be convicted and the order of acquittal, although not Based on proper grounds, must be upheld. We accordingly dismiss the appeal of the State.