STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. S SHANUMUGHAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 1/11/1969, a sample of gingelly oil was purchased by the Food Inspector, Madurai Municipality from the shop of the first respondent, who is now reported to be dead and against whom, this appeal has, therefore, abated. At that time respondent No. 2 was attending to the business. After completing the necessary formalities the Food Inspector arranged to send one part of the sample to the Public Analyst at Madras for analysis. The sample was analysed by the Public Analyst on 11/11/1969 and it was reported by him that it contained 5.1 Per Cent of Free Fatty Acid as against the limit of 3.0 per cent permissible under Clause A.17.11 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. In his report he also mentioned that the sample was properly sealed, it was air-and-moisture-tight and packed in thick paper so as to be proof against light, and, the Free Fatty Acid content of the oil would, therefore, remain unchanged for several months. ON receipt of the Public Analyst's report a complaint was filed against the two respondents for an offence under Section 16 (1) (a) and Section 7 (i) read with S. 2 (i) (1) and Cl. A.17.11 of Appendix 'B' to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Both the respondents denied the offence. The second respondent stated that he signed on the various documents produced by the prosecution as he was asked to do so by the Inspector. He did not read the contents of those documents. The brother of the second respondent was examined as a defence witness and he stated that he was in the shop when the Food Inspector came there purchased the sample and that at the time of the sale the Food Inspector was told that the gingelly oil was not meant to be used as an article of food but was meant for "oil bath".

(2.) AT the trial a request was made by the respondents that another part of the sample which had been produced by the Food Inspector in the Court might be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, for analysis. It was sent as desired. The sample was analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta on 6/02/1970. According to his report the gingelly oil contained 6.2 Per Cent of Free Fatty Acid and was, therefore, adulterated.

(3.) PARAGRAPH A.17.11 of Appendix 'B' to the Rules made under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act prescribes the standard in the case of Tit oil (Gingelly or sesame oil) and to the extent relevant it reads as follows :