LexRAM LAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- RAM LAL v. ·sTATE OF RAJASTHAN NOVEMBER 1, 2000 [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] Criminal law: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Section 2(v)-Food-Camel 's milk-Human consumption-Fitness for- Held: Camel's milk is rich and nutritious-It contains fatty acid and its protein content is the same as in cow's milk-Hence camel's milk is fit for human consumption. A B c Section JO-food article-Sample-Taking of-Food Inspector-Power D of-Held: Food Inspector has no power to take sample if the article is not food article. Section 16(/)(a)(i)-Camel's milk-Adding water-Held: Is prohibited under R.44-Hence is an offence-Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, R.44. E Section 16(1) First proviso-Sentence-Minimum sentence-Adequate and special reasons-Existence of-Held: If there are adequate and special reasons minimum sentence may be imposed-Young age of accused can be regarded as a special reason-On facts, minimum sentence of 3 months' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500 imposed, as against 6 months' imprisonment F and fine of Rs. I 000 imposed by the High Court. Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules: Rule 5 Part III-Articles of Food-Definition and standard of quality-- Camel's miik-Held: The definition does not differentiate between milk of different animals-Hence camel's milk is also covered by the definition. G Item A.ll.01.0/ Appendix B-Camel's milk-Standard of-Held: No specific standard has been fixed for camel's milk-Standard for buffalo's milk is, therefore, not scientifically relevant for camel's milk-Hence, Central Government may consider fixation of standard for camel's milk. 321 H 322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A Words and Phrases: "Food"-Meaning of-Jn the context of S.2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appellant-accused was prosecuted under the Prevention of Food B Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling sub-standard camel's milk and adding water thereto~ The trial court acquitted the appellant on the premise that no standard had been fixed under the Act for such milk. But the High Court held that camel's milk could not be sold for human consumption; convicted the appellant under Section 16(1) of the Act and sentenced the appellant to C rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. Hence this appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Milk is defined in Item A.11.01.01 of Appendix B of Rule 5 of Part III of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. But the definition D does not differentiate between milk of different animals. Hence, it is clear that camel's milk also would fall within the amplitude of the said definition. (325-C) 1.2. Camel's milk can be consumed by human beings as a food article, for, if it were not so, the Food Inspector had no power to take a sample E therefrom. Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 confers F · power on the Food Inspector to take a sample of"any article of food". "Food" is defined in Section 2(v) of the Act and an article, which is food does not lose its character as food by the fact that it was also used or sold for other purposes. [325-D-E) Encyclopedia Americana Vol. 5 p. 163, G.S. Rathore : "Camels and their Management". Ch. 17 and "Paper on agricultural research by 'CJ RAD' a French Scientific Organisation", referred to. 2.1. The milk of camel is rich and nutritious. For people who live deep G in the deserts, camels are almost the only source of transportation, food, clothing, and shelter. They drink camel's milk and also make cheese from it. Camel's milk contains fatty acid and the total protein is of the same order as in cow's milk. (325-G; 326-A, G) 2.2. Even if the people outside the camel rearing regions did not think H of using milk of that mammal for human consumption, that is no reason to - RAM LAL v. ST ATE OF RAJAS THAN 323 de-recognize the practice of the people in those regions consuming milk of A camel in the same manner as other classes of edible milk consumed by people elsewhere. In some States in India, particularly in Rajasthan, camel's milk is extensively used as edible article. It is, therefore, not possible to agree with the finding of the High Court that camel milk is not fit for human consumption. (327-F, GI 3.1. The offence committed by the appellant is not merely that he sold sub-standard camel's milk but he sold the milk by adding water thereto. Rule 44 of the Rules prohibit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.