http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: RAM LAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/11/2000

BENCH: K.T. Thomas, & R.P. Sethi.

JUDGMENT:

THOMAS, J.

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   Appellant  claimed that since the milk he sold was  that of  a she-camel he cannot be prosecuted and convicted  under the  provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration  Act, 1954,  (for short the Act).  The trial court accepted  his claim  and acquitted him on the premise that no standard has been fixed under the Act for such milk.  But the High Court, after  holding that camels milk could not be sold for human consumption,  further held that the milk sold was not  shown to  be  camels  milk at all.  Nonetheless,  learned  single judge  of  the  High Court, on the appeal preferred  by  the State,  convicted  the appellant under Section 16(1) of  the Act  and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.

   Shri  Doongar  Singh, learned counsel for the  appellant seemed  to be more concerned with that part of the  judgment by which the High Court declared that camels milk cannot be sold  for human consumption.  Learned counsel expressed  the apprehension  that  the above view of the High  Court  would affect  the people of the State of Rajasthan by and large as many of them habitually consume camels milk.

   Now  it is a 22-year old story as the Food Inspector had purchased  milk  from the appellant on 9.10.1978.   He  took sample  therewith  on the spot.  One part of the sample  was sent  to the Public Analyst for examination.  The report  of the  Public Analyst showed that the sample was examined  and found  to  contain 25% of added water and that the milk  fat was  4.1%  and the milk solid non-fat was 6.74%.  After  the prosecution  evidence  was  completed  in  the  trial  court appellant  offered himself to be examined as a witness.   In his evidence he did not dispute the fact that Food Inspector purchased  milk from him nor the stand of the Food Inspector that  sampling was done in his presence.  However, appellant took  the  stand that it was milk of camel which was  edible and  that he did not add water to it.  His defence was  that no  standard was fixed for camels milk and hence he is  not liable  to be convicted on the strength of the report of the Public Analyst.

   It  is  an unnecessary exercise to discuss  whether  the milk  sold  by the appellant was camels milk or  any  other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

class of milk.  In this case the prosecution did not suggest what  class  of  milk had been sold to the  Food  Inspector. Hence  we  have to proceed on the assumption that  the  milk sold  by the appellant was camels milk.  Appellant opted to give  defence  evidence  on the impression that  the  charge which he was called upon to face was that he sold milk which was not usable for human consumption.

   Part  III  of the Prevention of Food Adulteration  Rules (for  short the Rules) contains Definitions and Standards@@       JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ of Quality of various articles of food.  Rule 5 which falls@@ JJ within  the said Part says that the standards of quality of various  articles  of food specified in Appendix B to  these Rules  are as defined in that appendix.  Milk is defined in Item  A.11.01.01  of  Appendix  B  as  the  normal  mammary secretion  derived  from complete milking of  healthy  milch animal  without  either  addition   thereto  or   extraction therefrom.  But it shall be free from colostrum. The above definition  does not differentiate between milk of different animals.   Hence  it is clear that camels milk  also  would fall  within  the  amplitude of the  said  definition.   The question  whether  the camel milk can be consumed  by  human beings as a food article need not vex us much, for, the Food Inspector  in  this case took the sample on  the  assumption that  it  was a food article.  If it was not a food  article the  Food  Inspector had no power to take sample  therefrom. Section 10 of the Act confers power on the Food Inspector to take  sample of any article of food.  Food is defined in Section 2(v) as any article used as food or drink for human consumption,  other than drugs and water and includes . (As the items included thereby are not very relevant for the purpose of this case the remaining part of the definition is omitted).  We may observe that 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.

   After  observing  that camels milk could not have  been sold  for human consumption learned single judge of the High Court  proceeded  to  consider the evidence in the  case  to ascertain  whether  the  sample was really that  of  camels milk.   The  evidence tendered by the accused to the  effect that  the  milk  sold  by him was camels  milk  was  simply sidelined  by the learned single judge, but he did not reach any  specific finding as to what class of milk had been sold to  the  Food Inspector.  In our view, there is no room  for dissenting from the defence version that it was camels milk that  was  sold to the Food Inspector.  We  would  therefore proceed on that premise.

   In  Encyclopaedia  Americana (volume 5, page 263) it  is mentioned  that  the  milk of camel is nutritious.   In  the World  Book Encyclopedia it is said that millions of people who  live in Africa and Asia depend on camels to supply most of  their  needs For people who live deep in the  deserts, camels  are almost the only source of transportation,  food, clothing,  and  shelter They drink camels milk  and  also make  cheese from it.  The milk is so rich and thick that it forms hard lumps in tea or coffee.

   In  the  book  authored  by  Mr.   G.S.Rathore,   Former Director   Animal  Husbandary   Department,  Government   of Rajasthan,  which  was  published  by  Indian  Council   of Agricultural Research (ICAR is its acronym) under the title

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Camels  and their Management the following passage appears in Chapter 17:

   Composition  of  Milk  Milk does not  occupy  the  same position  in commerce as that of cows and baffaloes  chiefly because  of  its limited availability.  Besides, camels  are not bred and reared as mulch animals.  However, camels milk is  sold  in some parts of the world and forms an  important article of food for camel-rearers.  She-camels are generally milked  twice a day.  They yield 2.5 to 5 kg a day, and some 15  kg  a day.  The location yield is reported to vary  from 1300  to  3600  kg, depending on the extent of  feeding  and care.  But a low yield is the rule.

   Like  the  milk from other milch animals,  she-  camels milk  is likely to vary in its gross composition with breed, individual   animals,   plan  of   nutrition,   season   and atmospheric  temperature,  age, stage of lactation, and  the analytical  techniques  used.  Most camel- rearers find  the milk  of camel sharp and saline in taste and hard to  curdle or  to  prepare ghee from it by the usual methods.  Much  of the  she-camels milk is consumed as liquid milk though some of it is used in preparing delicacies.

   The  study  made with camels milk by various  countries reveals that it contains fatty acid and the total protein is of the same order as in cows milk.  In the same publication it  is  mentioned that Russian workers have  made  extensive studies on the vitamin contents of camels milk.

   A French Scientific Organisation called CIRAD has been specialising  in  agricultural research for the tropics  and@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ subtropics  of  the world.  Recently the  said  organisation came  out  with  a  paper which  is  available  in  internet (Website: http://www.cirad.fr/publications/ouvrages/608/opening.html). The  following passage in it under the caption The  camels milk  commodity systems, how to lay a bet on modernity,  and traditional  techniques,  can  profitably be used  for  our purpose.

   Some  countries have already taken up the challenge  of giving  camels  full productive animal status, an  important factor  in animal production economics.  In most cases,  the move  was initiated by farsighted individuals who were ahead of  their time and deserve recognition.  The dairies set  up here  and  there are an excellent, albeit isolated  example, and  the  Laitiere de Mauuritanie is a case in  point.   The private  initiatives  launched  by farmers to sell  milk  in production  zones  or  urban consumption  areas  is  another striding   example  of  the   economic  dynamism  of   these operations  who have far too often been overlooked.  This is currently  the case in many animal production zones such  as southern  Morocco, more historically in Somalia, and on  the ranches  of northern areas where camels have been introduced alongside  bovines and zebus, to quote just a few  examples. In  other  areas,  the  move reflected  a  strong  political commitment   on  the  part  of   those  in  charge  of   the agricultural economy and their operational structures.  This was  the  case  in  central Asia,  where  the  camels  milk commodity channels have entirely fulfilled the role assigned to  them:   feeding specific target populations  in  certain cities(for  dietetic or therapeutic dietetic or  therapeutic diets  in hospitals), but also healthy populations for  whom

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

camels milk products have a high symbolic value rather than being seen as mere foods.  This is still the case in Africa, particularly  Mauritania,  where the authorities  appreciate the  manifold  and productive role the species can  play  in providing milk to urban areas.

   Even  if the people outside camel raring regions did not think  of  using milk of that mammal for human  consumption, that  is no reason to derecognise the practice of the people in  those regions consuming milk of camel in the same manner as  other  classes  of edible milk are  consumed  by  people elsewhere.

   For  all  the above reasons we are unable to agree  with the finding of the High Court that camel milk is not fit for human  consumption.   We do recognise the fact that in  some States  in  India, particularly in Rajasthan, camel milk  is extensively used as edible article.

   True,  no  standard  has  been  specifically  fixed  for camels  milk  in the Rules.  However,  different  standards have  been  fixed for different classes and designations  of milk.   In  the table provided below the Rules,  under  Item A.11.01.11  of  Appendix-B, only three classes of  milk  are mentioned  i.e.   buffalo milk, cow milk and goat  or  sheep milk.   But clause (i) of the Note added to the table states thus:

   When  milk is offered for sale without any  distinction of  class,  the standards prescribed for buffalo milk  shall apply.

   For  buffalo  milk different standards are fixed as  for different  States.   For the State of Rajasthan the  minimum milk   fat   fixed   for  buffalo   milk  is  5%   and   the milk-solids-non-fat  should be 9%.  In the present case  the Public  Analyst  found  (as pointed out  earlier)  that  the sample  of milk contains only 4.1% of milk fat and 6.74%  of milk-solids-non-fat.   In  spite  of the Note added  to  the table  provided under the aforesaid items we have difficulty to  treat the two constituents of camels milk on a par with buffalo  milk for more than one reason.  In the Encyclopedia Americana (International Edn.) a table is given for Average Composition  of  milk from different mammals.  For  buffalo milk   the  fat  percentage  is  7.73,  and   non-solids-fat percentage  is  9.93  whereas  for camel  milk  the  average percentage  of  fat  is 4.15 and solids-non-fat is  only  8. Even  in  the  publication made by the ICAR  composition  of camels milk is shown as fat 7.8 per cent and solids-non-fat 9.59 per cent.

   If  the above is the study report of even the ICAR it is for  the  prosecution to show how the  minimum  requirements fixed  for buffalo milk would become scientifically relevant as  for  the  camels  milk.   This is  an  area  where  the attention  of  the Central Government must be  focussed  for considering  whether  there  should be  re-fixation  of  the components as for the standard in respect of camels milk.

   Be  that  as  it  may,  the  offence  committed  by  the appellant  is  not merely that he sold sub-standard  camels milk  but he sold the milk by adding water thereto.  Rule 44 of  the Rules prohibits the sale of milk which contains any added  water.  The Public Analyst who tested the sample  in the  laboratory has reported that it contained 25% of  added

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

water.   Hence the offence to be found against appellant  is Section 16(1)(a)(I) of the Act.

   We,  therefore,  uphold the conviction of the  appellant though  for  different  reasons which we  have  adverted  to above.  Now we have to decide the question of sentence.

   A  plea was made before us to reduce the sentence to the minimum  permitted under the first proviso to Section  16(1) of  the Act.  It is not disputed that if there are  adequate and  special  reasons the sentence could be brought down  to imprisonment  for a term of 3 months and a fine of Rs.500/-, as  this  case falls within the ambit of clause (i)  of  the Proviso to Section 16(1).

   Appellant was only 19 years old when he sold the milk to the  Food  Inspector.   We  have no doubt  that  it  can  be regarded  as  a special reason.  Yet another reason is  that appellant  was put to notice by the prosecution in the  High Court that the offence committed was that he sold an article which  was  not edible.  We also take into account the  fact that  the  appellant  was not given any opportunity  to  say anything  regarding  the sentence.  Of course, there was  no need  for  the  trial  court to do so  since  appellant  was acquitted by that court.  But when the High Court had chosen to  reverse  the acquittal and convicted him he should  have been  heard on the sentence.  Now it is too late in the  day for  us  to  send the case back to the High Court  for  that purpose  alone.   Any  further delay in  disposing  of  this matter would cause irreparable damage to him.

   For  all  the  above reasons we reduce the  sentence  to imprisonment for 3 months and a fine of Rs.500/-, default in payment of which the appellant will undergo imprisonment for a further period of 15 days.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.