IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 37 of 2006 Date of Decision : 21.04.2011 Balkar Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J (ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated December 20th, 2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Kaithal whereby, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated February 7th, 2002 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, convicting the revisionist- accused under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Food Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation, was upheld. 2. On August 25th, 1993 at about 9.00 AM, Harbhajan singh, Government Food Inspector intercepted the petitioner near Power House - Siwan, District Kaithal. He was carrying 20 litres of cow milk in a drum for public sale. The Food Inspector purchased 750 mls. milk for analysis, after serving notice upon the accused, on payment of Rs.5/- vide receipt (Exhibit PB). The milk purchased was divided and poured in three clean, dry and empty bottles in equal share. The bottles were stoppered, labelled and sealed separately in accordance with the prescribed procedure. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Karnal in accordance with the rules. The Public Analyst vide his report (Exhibit PD) opined that the contents of the sample contained milk fat to the extent of 5.5 per cent and milk solids not fat was found 7.7 per cent against the prescribed standard of 8.5 per cent. The milk was found adulterated. 3. On the asking of the petitioner, the sample was also sent to Central Food Laboratory (for short, “Central Laboratory”) for analysis at Mysore. Vide report (Exhibit PF), the Central Laboratory found milk fat to the extent of 5.3 per cent and milk solids not fat was 8.04 per cent. Thus, as per the report of Central Laboratory, the milk was found deficient in milk solids not-fat to the extent of .46 per cent. 4. The solitary submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was a marginal deficiency of 0.46 per cent in the milk solids not fat and for the same there could be number of reasons, viz. that (i). Food Inspector might not have stirred properly so as to make it homogenous (ii).sample taken was not found deficient in milk-fat; and (iii). when milk-fat was 5.3 per cent and fulfilled the prescribed standard, therefore, the marginal deficiency of 0.46 per cent in the milk solids not fat could be due to poor feed of the cow. 5. To support the submissions, reliance has been placed upon P.S.Sharma Vs. Madanlal Kasturichandji and another 2002 (2) FAC 224, Bhal Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2003 (1) FAC 207 and Administrator of City of Nagpur Vs. Laxman and another 1996(2) FAC 297. 6. In P.S.Sharma's case (supra), there was a marginal difference of only 1 per cent from the minimum prescribed standard. It was observed by the Hon`ble Supreme Court that when marginal difference of 1 per cent was noticed by the Public Analyst or Central Food Laboratory, it is possible that there may be some error creeping in the conclusion reached thereto. Hon`ble Supreme Court also relied upon its earlier decision in Laxman's case (supra). In that case, the only shortfall was that milk solids not-fat was 7.3 per cent, whereas it ought to have been 8.5 per cent and the accused- respondent (therein) was acquitted by the Courts below and the Hon`ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Administrator of the City of Nagpur. 7. In Darshan Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1995 (1) FAC 79, the milk was found deficient only by 0.4 per cent in milk solids not-fat of the minimum prescribed standard. This Court set-aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Sawaran Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1997(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 546. 8. As observed above, in this case, per the Central Laboratory's report (Exhibit PF), milk solids not-fat was found deficient only to the extent of 0.46 per cent. So, possibility cannot be ruled out of an error creeping in particularly because the reports of the two laboratories did not tally. 9. Above being the factual and legal position, this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below fell in error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Thus, revision petition is accepted and the judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Courts below are set-aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 21.4.2011 som Note:- Whether refer to reporter : Yes/No