Statutory milk standards cannot be relaxed by de minimis doubt; proven added water amounts to adulteration.

A prescribed food-standard for milk cannot be diluted by a judicial de minimis or borderline-variation exception; once the statutory standard is fixed, even a small proven departure is not to be ignored. On the facts discussed, cow milk sold with added water and not conforming to the prescribed standard was treated as adulterated because the food fell below the statutory quality and purity requirements. The Public Analyst's report was relied on as sufficient evidence in the absence of any superseding certificate, and liability under the penal provision followed from the proved non-conformity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a marginal or borderline variation from the prescribed standard in a sample of milk can be ignored so as to give the accused the benefit of doubt; (ii) whether the proved sale of cow milk containing added water and not conforming to the statutory standard constituted adulteration punishable under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether a marginal or borderline variation from the prescribed standard in a sample of milk can be ignored so as to give the accused the benefit of doubt.

Analysis: The prescribed standards for food articles are fixed under the statutory scheme after consultation and deliberate rule-making, and the Court held that once a standard is prescribed it cannot be relaxed by judicially creating a de minimis exception. The earlier contrary approach, which treated slight variation as a matter of doubt, was explained as fact-specific and not a rule of law. Allowing courts to ignore small departures would substitute a fluctuating judicial standard for the certainty intended by the statute.

Conclusion: Marginal or borderline variation cannot be ignored, and the accused is not entitled to acquittal on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the proved sale of cow milk containing added water and not conforming to the statutory standard constituted adulteration punishable under the Act.

Analysis: The evidence of sale and the Public Analyst's report showed that the sample did not conform to the prescribed standard for cow milk and contained added water. Under the statutory definition, an article of food is adulterated if its quality or purity falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents exceed permissible limits, and milk sold with added water also contravenes the prohibition against such sale. The report of the Public Analyst was admissible and sufficient in the absence of a superseding certificate.

Conclusion: The sale amounted to adulteration and attracted liability under the penal provision.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the respondent was convicted and sentenced in accordance with the statute, the appeal succeeding on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: When the legislature has fixed a food-standard under the statute, any proven departure from that standard constitutes adulteration and courts cannot dilute the standard by invoking a de minimis or borderline-variation exception.

---