JUDGMENT
S.C. Jain, J.
(1) Shri Mahabir Prasad, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment of one month for violation of Rule 44(j) of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 read with Section 7(v) read with S. 16(l)(a)(ii) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by order dated 20.12.1979 by the Addl Sessions Judge Delhi. ‘
(2) The short question which requires determination in this case is the interpretation of Rule 44(j) of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, as it existed in 1976, which reads as under : “NOTWITHSTANDING the provisions of rule 43 no person shall either by himself or by any servant or agent sell dahi or curd prepared from raw and untreated milk/skimmed milk.”
(3) As per the arguments of Shri Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner Rule 44(j) is one consolidated piece and it cannot be dissected into various parts. According to him, the act which can be said to be in violation of this rule is the sale of dahi or curd prepared from raw and untreated milk or skimmed milk. He drew my attention to Appendix B of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. A. 11.01.10 reads, “skimmed milk means the product prepared from milk from which almost all the milk-fat has been removed mechanically”.
(4) A.1.11 .02 reads “milk products mean the products obtained from milk such as cream malai, curd, skimmed milk, .chhanna, cheese, processed cheese, ice-cream milk-ices condensed milk, sweetened and unsweetened, consnsed skimmed milk, milk powder, skimmed milk powder, partly skimmed milk powder, khoa, infant milk food, table butter and deshi butter”. A.11.02.04, reads : “Dahi” or curd means the product obtained from pasteurised or boiled milk by souring, natural or otherwise by a harmless lactic acid or other bacterial culture. Dahi may contain added cane sugar. Dahi shall have the same minimum percentage of milk-fat and milk solids non-fat as the milk from which it is prepared.
(5) According to the learned counsel, sale of “dahi” or curd prepared from milk or skimmed milk if it is not raw and untreated does not come in violation of Rule 44(j) which was in existence at the relevant time. According to the learned counsel both the Courts below have not been able to interpret Rule 44(j) in its true meaning. It can only mean that the sale of “dahi” or curd prepared from raw and untreated skimmed milk is prohibited. It is not the case of the precaution that the curd sold by the petitioner was prepared from raw and untreated skimmed milk.
(6) There is force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the curd sold by the petitioner was sold as curd prepared from skimmed milk. It is not the case of the prosecution that the skimmed milk was raw and untreated. Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which are relevant in this case do not prohibit the sale of curd prepared from milk. The only prohibition which was there under Rule 44(j) at that time was that no curd could be sold which was prepared from raw and untreated milk skimmed milk. The words “raw and untreated” are most significant words used in this rule which have to be read in conjunction with the word milk/skimmed milk. The- words raw and untreated cannot be separated from the words milk or skimmed milk. The interpretation of Rule 44(j), which was in existence at that time, set forth by the Courts below is erroneous and cannot be accepted as correct. If two interpretations are possible one beneficial to the accused has to be adopted.
(7) Rule 44(j) of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, can only mean that the sale of curd prepared from raw and untreated milk or skimmed milk is prohibited. By the interpretation of this Rule it cannot be taken that the sale of curd prepared from boiled and treated skimmed milk is prohibited, if it is sold branding it as such. It is not injurious to health. It is the curd prepared from raw and untreated milk or skimmed milk which is prohibited under rule 44(j) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The Courts below have gone wrong in interpreting Rule 44(j). I, therefore, accept this revision petition and set aside the orders of the Courts below and acquit the petitioner. The petitioner is on bail. The bond shall stand discharged.