M.M. Punchhi, J.—In this revision petition challenge has been made to a conviction recorded by the Courts below under section 7 read with section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The sentence thereunder is reducedly the minimum prescribed under the law, that is six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

2. The broad facts remain undisputed. On 25th August, 1979, the petitioner Sultan was found carrying a drum containing 18 kilograms of cows milk. Shri Abhe Ram, Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity, purchased 660 mililiters of milk from the petitioner. That was properly divided into three equal parts; put in 3 dry and clean bottles, preservative added thereto and bottles separately stoppered and sealed. The sample sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh brought the result that milk solid fat was in excess of the prescribed standard and milk solid non-fats were deficient to the extent of 25% than the minimum prescribed standard. Food Inspector, Abhe Ram (P.W. 1) was supported by Dr. O.P. Sarwal fP.W. 2). Both the witnesses unequivocally said that milk was stirred before samples were taken. It is on these facts that on trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced, despite his denial to the occurrence, and the order was maintained by the Appellate Court, though the sentence was reduced.

3. Shri O.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid considerable stress on the report of the Public Analyst. He says that milk fat was 6.4%, whereas 4% is the minimum standard prescribed. Milk solid non-fat was 6.4% whereas the minimum prescribed was 8.5%. According to him, these results would legitimately permit him to raise the plea what is known in some western countries as "an appeal to the cow. He says that if the animal gave milk which was below the prescribed standard and without there being any evidence that it was adulterated with any extraneous material, he was entitled to acquittal. He placed reliance on Single Bench decisions Sultan Singh v. State of U. P., 1974 FAC 424 and Dhani Ram v. State, 1979 (I) FAC 47, both being of the Allahabad High Court. He also cited a Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Kadam Singh and Puran v. State of U.P. and others, 1978 (I) FAC 160. This decision was relied upon by the Single Bench in Dhani Ram's case (supra). He also drew sustenance from the view taken by this Court in Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 (I) FAC 432 and Hans Raj v. The State of Punjab, 1980 (II) FAC 396 the latter rendered by C.S. Tiwana, J., quoting with approval the judgment of Sultan Singhs case (supra) of the Allahabad High Court. In addition thereto, support was sought from M.C.D. v. Jawahar Lal, 1980 (II) FAC 145, a Single Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in which Hans Rajs case (supra) of this Court was relied upon. The view of the law taken in the aforesaid decisions arose out of the cases in which adulteration had been detected prior to the amendment brought about in the definition of the word "adulterated" as existing in section 2(ii)(a) of the Act. However, the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in M.C.D. v. Jawahar Lals case (supra) was after the amendment, but it does not seem to have been taken note of. On the other hand, a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Karnail Singh, 1978 PLR 717 did not agree with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Sultan Singhs case (supra). And even in that High Court, the view does not seem to be holding good as decision made in Ratan Lal v. State, 1976 (I) FAC 125 and Kullu v. State, 1978 (II) FAC 259 would reveal.

4. If the report of the Public Analyst is accepted as correct by the Court, then the only point which has to be taken into consideration by it in assessing the culpability of the individual, is to see whether it conforms to the standard prescribed under the Appendix B of the aforesaid Act. "Appeal to the cow" principle cannot be read into the words of the statute. The Court must attribute requisite wisdom to the framers of the Act who are presumed to be well aware of the deficiency of food available to be given to the milch-cattle in this country and their otherwise ill-health and malnutrition. Here the meaning of the statute is not obscure and we cannot attribute alternate methods of construction merely on account of the inconvenience and hardship. On the unchallengeable report of the Public Analyst if the offence is made out, there is no option left to the Court, but to record a conviction of the culprit. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Hazara Singh, 1975 (1) FAC 271 have held :

"The standard fixed under the Act is one that is certain. If it is varied to any extent, the certainty of a general standard would be replaced by the vagaries of a fluctuating standard. The disadvantages of the resulting unpredictability, uncertainty and impossibility of arriving at fair and consistent decisions arc great."

5. The Act 34 of 1976 which came into force on 1st of April, 1976 caused amendment in the word adulterated occurring in section 2. The relevant sub-sections are :

(I) If the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, which renders it injurious to health;

(m) If the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health :

Provided that, where the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, in either cases, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, then such article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this sub-clause.

............................ .............................

6. Undisputably, milk is not primary food as defined in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Now, adding of water to milk will not render its consumption injurious to health. Clause (I) would apply to all articles of food for human consumption, Clause (ra) deals with a different situation where an article offood when falls below the standard of variability, yet does not render it injurious to health. It would cover the case of milk despite the fact that water added thereto would not render it injurious to health. The proviso as said before can have no applicability as milk is not a primary food, Thus, adding or not adding water to milk is of no consequence. It may still be a natural and complete secretion of the udders of cow, but yet if it falls in quality or purity from the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, it would be adulterated. Thus, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that on the analysis of the Public Analyst, the milk was adulterated. The Judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner to support his cause can be of no avail.

7. Fault can only be found in such like cases to the method of taking the samples or in the manner of their analysis. No fault can be found in the instant case to the manner in which the samples were taken as the milk was stirred before hand. The report of the Public Analyst, however, is not conclusive evidence for the purpose of proving adulteration. The Public Analyst was not examined as a witness, but his report was tendered and read into evidence, which is Ext. PD. It is to the following effect :

"..........I further certify that I have/had caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample, and declare the result of analysis to be as follows : -

This is a cyclostyle form duly filled in. It nowhere mentions that 220 millilitres of cows milk to which preservatives had been added, was stirred or thoroughly shaken before analysis. In Kadam Singh's case (supra) of the Allahabad High Court, notice was taken that when milk is stirred, the fat content comes to the top as the temperature of the milk is brought down and without stirring it thoroughly, the sample, if taken from the top, would be very high in fat contents and would not give a correct picture. It is in that light that the report of the Public Analyst was held to be far from convincing and not absolutely free from doubt.

8. Here the report Ext. PD is silent as to whether sample was thoroughly shaken and the milk was stirred before conducting the analysis to come to that conclusion. No data is available on the record to indicate whether addition of preservatives to the sample milk had the attribute of preserving it in the shaken and mixed form and for the purpose of maintaining its accurate trustworthiness. Everything seems to be left to the Public Analyst. But his report has not made the Court any wiser whether the contents of the sample were partially or wholly consumed in the analysis and whether shaken before hand to make it consistent in its constituents. It may be that the upper layer of the milk alone was examined resulting in the high percentage of milk fat and low percentage of milk solid non-fat. How also can such a high percentage of milk fat otherwise be accountable. Doubt having crept in the report of the Public Analyst, its benefit must necessarily go in favour of the petitioner.

9. For the foregoing reasons, I have no option but to accept this petition and record an order of acquittal of the revision petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Fine, if paid, be refunded to him.