Separate dispatch under food sample rules and substantial compliance with sample quantity requirements upheld in adulteration case.

Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was interpreted to require the memorandum and specimen seal to be kept separate from the sample packet, not necessarily sent at different times or by different messengers, so compliance was found where they were enclosed in separate covers. A shortfall in the quantity sent for analysis did not vitiate the prosecution because Rule 22 calls for approximate quantity and substantial compliance is sufficient if the sample can be properly analysed. On the merits, the commodity was treated as milk ice, the analyst found excess milk fat, and the sample was held to be adulterated food, leading to conviction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was violated when the sample packet and the memorandum and specimen seal were sent through the same messenger at the same time; (ii) whether the short quantity of sample sent for analysis vitiated the prosecution under Rule 22; and (iii) whether the article sold was milk ice and whether the sample proved adulteration.

Issue (i): whether Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was violated when the sample packet and the memorandum and specimen seal were sent through the same messenger at the same time.

Analysis: Rule 18 is mandatory, but the requirement of sending the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal "separately" must be understood with reference to the scheme of Rules 7, 17 and 18. The expression does not mean that the documents must be sent at different times or through different persons. It means only that they must not be enclosed together with the sample packet. The safeguard is directed to ensuring identity of the sample and preventing tampering, and that object is satisfied when the sample packet and the seal impression are kept in separate covers. The Public Analyst's report and the Food Inspector's testimony supported due compliance.

Conclusion: Rule 18 was complied with and the respondent failed on this objection.

Issue (ii): whether the short quantity of sample sent for analysis vitiated the prosecution under Rule 22.

Analysis: In the light of the Supreme Court's ruling on Rule 22, the expression "approximate quantity" does not require exact weight, and the rule is substantially complied with if the quantity supplied is sufficient for proper analysis. Rule 22-B also supports the view that the quantity sent is to be treated as sufficient unless the analyst reports otherwise. The shortage pleaded by the respondent therefore did not prejudice the defence or invalidate the sample.

Conclusion: The objection based on Rule 22 failed.

Issue (iii): whether the article sold was milk ice and whether the sample proved adulteration.

Analysis: The contemporaneous notice and the respondent's own description showed that the commodity sold was milk ice. The definition in the Rules was compared with the Public Analyst's finding that the milk fat content exceeded the prescribed maximum. The trial court's doubt about the nature of the article was found unreasonable in view of the respondent's signed statement and the analyst's report. The sample therefore did not conform to the prescribed standard and was adulterated food.

Conclusion: The article was milk ice and the respondent was guilty of selling adulterated food.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the respondent was convicted and sentenced for the offence of selling adulterated food under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: For Rule 18, "separately" means separate from the sample packet and not necessarily at a different time or through a different messenger, and a sample quantity not exactly matching Rule 22 does not vitiate the case if it is sufficient for proper analysis and the statutory purpose is achieved.

---