R.N. Aggarwal, J.
(1) On 29th July 1976 at about 6.45 A.M. the respondent herein Bhopal was found selling mixed milk in a can which contained on it the writing 'mixed milk'. The Food Inspector Shri Darbari Lal purchased 660 mille litres of milk from the respondent. The Food Inspector divided the sample in three parts and sent one- part of the sample ti.' the Public Analyst who on analysis found the sample to be adulterated due to .18 deficiency in milk solids non fat contents.
(2) The learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquired the accused on the ground that the deficiency found in the sample was marginal and negligible. The Magistrate for Ins conclusion relied upon Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Om Prakash. . Against the order of acquittal the New Delhi Municipal Committee has come in appeal.
(3) Mr. Gnpta ;ippe;uit]g fur the appellant contended that the ('act that in the sample of milk only a marginal deviation in the prescribed standard of purity was found was not a good ground for acquittal. The counsel in support of his contention referred to Des Raj v. The State of Punjab 1980 FAJ 440 ; Municipal Corporation v. Nestle's Products. 1975 FAJ 486.
(4) We are in agreement with the view expressed in Municipal Corporation v. Nestle's Products (Supra) that while fixing the standards of qualities) of articles of food the Government must have given allowance for probable errors in the process of analysis and that the standard fixed under the Act should be observed in every detail. We are, however, not inclined to interfere with the older of the acquittal for the reasons that the sample of milk was taken in 1976. The order of acquittal was passed in September, 1978. The sample was found to be deficient only by 18 in non-fat milk solids contents. We are of the view that it is not a lit case where the order of acquittal should be interfered wits.