Holding

Camel's milk is a food article fit for human consumption; adding water makes its sale an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i), and the conviction is upheld with the sentence reduced to three months' imprisonment and a Rs.500 fine.

Summary

The appellant was prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling camel's milk to a food inspector, the milk having 25% added water. The trial court acquitted him on the ground that no specific standard existed for camel's milk, but the Rajasthan High Court convicted him, holding that camel's milk is not fit for human consumption and sentencing him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a Rs.1,000 fine. The Supreme Court held that the definition of "milk" in the Rules does not differentiate between animal sources, so camel's milk falls within the definition of food and is fit for human consumption; consequently, the addition of water makes the sale an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) and Rule 44. The conviction was upheld, but the sentence was reduced to three months' imprisonment and a Rs.500 fine, considering the appellant’s youth and the failure to hear him on sentencing. The Court also noted the absence of a specific standard for camel's milk and directed the Central Government to consider fixing one.

Issues considered

Whether camel's milk is covered by the definition of "milk" and "food" under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Whether camel's milk is fit for human consumption.
Whether the sale of camel's milk with added water constitutes an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and Rule 44 of the Rules.
Whether the conviction can stand despite the lack of a specific standard for camel's milk.
Whether the sentence can be reduced under the proviso to Section 16(1) on the basis of special reasons and procedural fairness.

Legislation cited

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954s. 10, s. 16(1), s. 16(1)(a)(i), s. 2(v)

Subjects

Food lawPrevention of Food Adulteration Actcamel milkfood adulterationstandards of qualitysentence reductionspecial reasonssample takingwater addition

Judgment

RAM LAL A
v.
·sTATE OF RAJASTHAN

NOVEMBER 1, 2000

[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] B

Criminal law:

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954:

Section 2(v)-Food-Camel 's milk-Human consumption-Fitness for-
c
Held: Camel's milk is rich and nutritious-It contains fatty acid and its
protein content is the same as in cow's milk-Hence camel's milk is fit for
human consumption.

- Section JO-food article-Sample-Taking of-Food Inspector-Power
of-Held: Food Inspector has no power to take sample if the article is not
D

food article.

Section 16(/)(a)(i)-Camel's milk-Adding water-Held: Is prohibited
under R.44-Hence is an offence-Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,
R.44.
E
Section 16(1) First proviso-Sentence-Minimum sentence-Adequate
and special reasons-Existence of-Held: If there are adequate and special
reasons minimum sentence may be imposed-Young age of accused can be
regarded as a special reason-On facts, minimum sentence of 3 months'
imprisonment andfine of Rs. 500 imposed, as against 6 months' imprisonment F
and fine of Rs. I 000 imposed by the High Court.

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules:

Rule 5 Part III-Articles of Food-Definition and standard of quality--
Camel's miik-Held: The definition does not differentiate between milk of
different animals-Hence camel's milk is also covered by the definition. G
Item A.ll.01.0/ Appendix B-Camel's milk-Standard of-Held: No
specific standard has been fixed for camel's milk-Standard for buffalo's milk
is, therefore, not scientifically relevant for camel's milk-Hence, Central
Government may consider fixation of standard for camel's milk.
321
H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Words and Phrases:

"Food"-Meaning of-Jn the context of S.2(v) of the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

The appellant-accused was prosecuted under the Prevention of Food
B Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling sub-standard camel's milk and adding
water thereto~ The trial court acquitted the appellant on the premise that no
standard had been fixed under the Act for such milk. But the High Court
held that camel's milk could not be sold for human consumption; convicted
the appellant under Section 16(1) of the Act and sentenced the appellant to
C rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. Hence
this appeal.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

-
HELD: 1.1. Milk is defined in Item A.11.01.01 of Appendix B of Rule
5 of Part III of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. But the definition
D does not differentiate between milk of different animals. Hence, it is clear
that camel's milk also would fall within the amplitude of the said definition.
(325-C)

1.2. Camel's milk can be consumed by human beings as a food article,
for, if it were not so, the Food Inspector had no power to take a sample
E therefrom. Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 confers
· power on the Food Inspector to take a sample of"any article of food". "Food"
is defined in Section 2(v) of the Act and 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. [325-D-E)
F
Encyclopedia Americana Vol. 5 p. 163, G.S. Rathore : "Camels and
their Management". Ch. 17 and "Paper on agricultural research by 'CJRAD'
a French Scientific Organisation", referred to.

2.1. The milk of camel is rich and nutritious. For people who live deep
G in the deserts, camels are almost the only source of transportation, food,
clothing, and shelter. They drink camel's milk and also make cheese from
it. Camel's milk contains fatty acid and the total protein is of the same order
as in cow's milk. (325-G; 326-A, G)

2.2. Even if the people outside the camel rearing regions did not think
H of using milk of that mammal for human consumption, that is no reason to
RAM LAL v. ST ATE OF RAJAS THAN 323
de-recognize the practice of the people in those regions consuming milk of A
camel in the same manner as other classes of edible milk consumed by
people elsewhere. In some States in India, particularly in Rajasthan, camel's
milk is extensively used as edible article. It is, therefore, not possible to
agree with the finding of the High Court that camel milk is not fit for human
consumption. (327-F, GI
B
3.1. The offence committed by the appellant is not merely that he sold
sub-standard camel's 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."
Hence, the offence to be found against the appellant is under Section 16(l)(a)(i)
of the Act. (328-F) c
3.2. 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.
This case falls within the ambit of clause (i) of the proviso to Section 16(1).
The appellant was only 19 years old when he sold camel's milk to the Food
Inspector. There is no doubt that it can be regarded as a special reason. Yet D
another reason is that the 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. 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 that court acquitted the appellant. But when the High Court had
chosen to reverse the acquittal and convicted him he should have been heard E
on the sentence. Therefore, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment for 3
months and a fine of Rs. 500, default in payment of which the appellant will
undergo imprisonment for a period of 15 days. (328-H; 329-A-DI

4. No standard has been specifically fixed for camel's milk in the Rules. F
However, different standards have been fixed for different classes and
designations of milk. Therefore, it is for the prosecution to show how the
minimum requirements fixed for buffalo's milk would become scientifically
relevant as for camel's milk. This is an area where the attention of the
Central Government must be focused for considering whether there should
be re-fixation of the components as for the standard in respect of camel's G
"· milk. (327-H; 328-EI

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1271 of 1999.

From.the Judgment and Order dated 13.5.99 of the Rajasthan High Court H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A in S.B. Crl. A. No. 248 of 1982.

Doongar Singh and V.J. Francis for the Appellant.

Sushil Kumar Jain and A.P. Dhamija for the Respondent.

B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

THOMAS, 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
C has been fixed under the Act for such milk. But the High Court, after holding
that camel's milk could not be sold for human consumption, further held that
the milk sold was not shown to be camel's 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
D 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 camel's milk cannot be sold for human consumption. Learned
counsel expressed the apprehension that the above view of the High Court
E would affect the people of the State of Rajasthan by and large as many of
them habitually consume camel's milk.

Now it is a 22-year old story as the Food Inspector had purchased milk
from t~e 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
F .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
G the stand of the Food Inspector that sampling was done in his presence.
However, appellant took the stand that it was inilk of camel which 'was edible
and that he did not add water to it. His defence was that no standard was
fixed for camel's milk and hence he is not liable to be convicted on the
strength of the report of the Public Analyst.

H It is an unnecessary exercise to discuss whether the milk sold by the
RAM LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [THOMAS, J.] 325
appellant was camel's milk or any other class of milk. In this case the A
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 camel's 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.
B
Part III of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short 'the
Rules') contains "Definitions and Standards of Quality" of various articles of
food. Rule 5 which falls 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.I l.01.01 of Appendix C
Bas "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 camel's 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 D
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, E
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.
F
After observing that camel's 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
camel's milk. The evidence tendered by the accused to the effect that the milk .
sold by him was camel's milk was simply sidelined by the learned single judge, G
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 camel's 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 H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the milk of camel is nutritious. In the World Book Encyclopedia it is said that
"miilions 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 camel's milk and also make cheese from it. The milk is so rich and thick
B 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 "Camels and their Management" the following passage appears in Chapter
c 17:

"Composition of Milk

Milk does not occupy the same position in commerce as that of cows
and buffaloes chiefly because of its limited availability. Besides, camels
D are not bred and reared as milch animals. However, camel's 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.
E
Like the milk from other milch animals, she-camel's 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
F ghee from it by the usual methods. Much of the she-camel's milk is
consumed as liquid milk though some of it is used in preparing
delicacies."

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

A French Scientific Organisation called "CIRAD" has been specialising
in agricultural research for the tropics and subtropics of the world. Recently
H the said organisation came out with a paper which is available in internet
RAM LAL v. ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN [THOMAS, J.] 327

(Website: http://www.cirad.fr/publications/ouvrages/608/opening. html). The A
following passage in it under the caption "The camel's 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 B
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 C
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 D
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 camel's milk commodity channels
have entirely fulfilled the role assigned to them: feeding specific target
populations in certain cities(for dietetic or therapeutic dietetic or E
therapeutic diets in hospitals), but also healthy populations for whom
camel's 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".
F
Even if the people outside camel rearing 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 G
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 camel's milk in the
Rules. However, different standards have been fixed for different classes and H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A designations of milk. In the table provided below the Rules, under Item
A. I I .O I. I I 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
B 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. I% of
C 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 camel's i:nilk 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
D 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. I 5 and solids-non-fat is only 8.
Even in the publication made by the ICAR composition of camel's 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
E to show how the minimum requirements fixed for buffalo milk would become
scientifically relevant as for the camei's 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 camel's milk.

F Be that as it may, the offence committed by the appellant is not merely
that he sold sub-standard camel's 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 water. Hence the offence to be found
G against appellant is Section I6(I)(a)(I) of the Act.

We, therefore, uphold the conviction oft:1e appellant though for different
reasons which we have adverted to above. Now we have to decide the
question of sentence.

H A plea was made before us to reduce the sentence to the minimum
RAM LAL v. ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN [THOMAS, J,] 329

permitted under the first proviso to Section 16(1) of the Act. It is not disputed A
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 B
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 C
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.
D
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.
E
v.s.s. Appeal disposed of.

,•