1975 P Cr (PLP)

S. 6(1)(a). (c)‑Adulteration‑Chemical analysis‑Public Analyst's report need not show all contents of sample including solids and water etc.‑Law requires certificate to show result only‑Percentage of milk alone required to be shown in certificate‑Public Analyst's certificate, held, not incomplete. (c) West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance (VII of 1960)

‑‑‑‑‑ S. 6(1), (a) & (c)‑No serious attempt made by accused to get sample of milk, alleged to be adulterated, re‑examined‑Analyst's report not disputed and Courts below concurrently finding sample adulterated‑Contention that no opportunity was given for retesting of sample by Government Laboratory, in circumstances, overruled. Sulaiman Kasim for Appellant. Usman Ghani Rashid, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing t 15th May 1975. ‑ This revision application is directed against an order of Sessions Judge, Karachi whereby the appeal from conviction of the applicant, for offence under Section 6 (1)(a) & (c) of the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 and sentence of R. I. for one month and fine of Rs. 500 or in default further R. I. for one month, was dismissed.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 6‑5‑1971 Food Inspector, K. M. C. purchased samples of milk from the applicant for being sent to public analyst. The report of the public analyst showed that the sample of buffaloes milk was deficient by 20 % of milk fat which was due to addition of skimmed milk of extraction of fat. According to the requirements buffaloes' milk should contain at least 5 % of fat when in this case the milk fat was only 4 %.

3. It bas first been argued by learned counsel on behalf of the applicant that the sample of milk was taken on 6-5‑1971 but the same was analysed after 14 days on 20‑5‑1971 as per certificate of the public analyst. That during these 14 days chemical changes must have taken place and the report was bound to be defective. It has come in evidence that the sample of milk was handed over personally by the K. M. C. Inspector to the public analyst on the same day it was taken and it is usual for the technicians to add some preservative and to keep the milk in e refrigerator. The learned Advocate has not been able to show that the sample would be decomposed within a period of 14 days. If that had been the case the certificate of the analyst would have mentioned this fact.

4. It has then been argued that the report of the public analyst is not complete as it does not show all the contents of that sample including the solids and water etc. All that is required under the law is that the certificate should show the result and in this case the percentage of milk fat alone was required to be ascertained. It has also been argued that the applicant was summoned in Court after 5 months and he had, therefore, no opportunity to get the extra sample of milk retested by the Government laboratory. A serious attempt for such re‑examination does not appear to have been made, nor was it found necessary. The report of the analyst has hardly been disputed and there is a concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below that the sample was found adulterated. There is thus hardly any substance in this revision application which is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.