9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Prosecution under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling she-camel milk, standards under the Act, evidence of milk sold, classification of milk, composition of camel milk, prohibition on added water in milk, conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(I) of the Act, sentencing considerations. Analysis: The appellant claimed immunity from prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, asserting that the milk sold was she-camel milk, not covered by Act standards. The trial court acquitted based on lack of specific standards, but the High Court convicted under Section 16(1) after determining the milk sold was not proven to be camel milk. The appellant's defense centered on the absence of specific camel milk standards, arguing against conviction based on the Public Analyst's report. However, the prosecution did not specify the milk class sold, leading to the assumption that it was camel milk, guiding the defense's strategy. The Rules define milk broadly without animal differentiation, encompassing camel milk. The Act empowers Food Inspectors to sample any article used for human consumption, including milk. The defense's assertion of camel milk sale was sidelined by the High Court, necessitating a premise that the milk sold was indeed camel milk. Various sources confirm camel milk's nutritional value and consumption practices, especially in regions like Rajasthan, justifying its recognition as an edible article. While camel milk lacks specific standards under the Rules, the Act prohibits added water in milk. The Public Analyst's report indicating 25% added water led to the appellant's conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(I). Despite the absence of camel milk standards, the offense of selling adulterated milk with added water warranted the conviction, upheld by the Supreme Court based on different grounds. The Court's sentencing considerations, including the appellant's age at the time of the offense and procedural aspects, led to a reduced sentence of 3 months' imprisonment and a fine of &8377; 500/-, emphasizing the unique circumstances of the case and the appellant's lack of opportunity to address the sentence earlier. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction under the Act for selling adulterated camel milk with added water, despite the absence of specific standards for camel milk. The sentencing reduction to 3 months' imprisonment and a fine of &8377; 500/- considered the appellant's age and procedural fairness, ensuring a balanced approach to the case's resolution.
|
