-HITLIST-P.S. Sharma v. Madanlal Kasturichandji (SC) -RECORD-BS227064 -CITATION-2009(16) S.C.C. 276(St.Ishwinder) (HN Shailly/Ratan) zzzz6 -COURT-<ß>SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<þ> -JUDGE-Before:- S. Rajendra Babu and P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ.<þ> -NO- Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 1996. D/d. -DECISIONDATE-13.08.2002.<þ> -EXTRATEXT- -PETITIONER- P.S. Sharma - Appellant<þ> Versus<þ> -RESPONDENT- Madanlal Kasturichandji & Anr. - Respondents<þ> -ADVOCATE- For the Appellant :- Kuldip S Parihar, H.S. Parihar, Advocates.<þ> For the Respondent :- Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Ms. S. Hazarika, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocates.<þ> -HEADNOTE-<ß>Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Sections BTZKACA894ETZK2(i-a) and 2(m) - Milk Sample - Adulterated - Public Analyst notice difference of one percent from standard quantity - Held, it is possible that some error may have creeped in the conclusion of public analyst - Order of acquittal passed by High Court upheld - Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1986 dated 4.5.1994 and 1982 (2) GLR Vol. 23,624 relied upon.<þ> [Para 2]<þ> -CASEREF-<ß>Cases Referred :-<þ> City of Nagpur v. Laxman & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1986, D/d. 04.05.1994.<þ> State v. Bhagubhai Ramjibhai, 1982 (2) GLR Vol. 23, 624.<þ> -ORDER- ORDER<þ> 1. This appeal is directed against an order of acquittal in proceedings arising under The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.<þ> 2. On the basis that the samples of the milk taken from the respondents contained 6.6 per cent of milk fat and 7.5 per cent of milk solids non-fat, the proceedings were initiated. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample contained 3.01 milk fat and 11.02 per cent milk solids non-fat. The difference ultimately came down to only one per cent from the standard quantity. On this aspect, the contention putforth on behalf of the respondents is that the difference in percentage is on account of the circumstance that the distribution of fat in the milk in separate sample bottles will not be even as a result of violent churning of the milk. When marginal difference like one per cent was noticed by the Public Analyst or by the Central Food Laboratory, the Courts have taken the view that it is possible that there may be some error creeping in the conclusion reached thereto. In somewhat similar circumstances, this Court has upheld the orders of the courts below acquitting the accused in the case of Administrator of the <ß><ï>City of Nagpur v. Laxman & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 132/1986 decided on 4th May, 1994 The view taken by the High Court of Gujarat in <ß><ï>State v. Bhagubhai Ramjibhai 1982 (2) GLR Vol.23, 624, followed by the High Court is also on the same lines.<þ> 3. Therefore, our interference in the present case is not called for. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.<þ> -RESULT- Appeal dismissed.<þ>

<þ>