RADHEY SHAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of Mr. K.B. Andley, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 7/16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 only.

(2.) The relevant facts for the purpose of this revision may now be noted. On 25-7-73, a sample of refined groundnut oil taken far analysis by Food Inspector R.D. Sharma from the petitioner The Public Analyst declared it adulterated due to positive presence of 5.0% of cotton seed oil. The defence of the petitioner was that the sample was taken from a tin of Postman Brand Oil and someone had left the tin at his shop. During the proceedings the petitioner requested the court to send the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for analysis. The court accepted the petitioner's request. The Director of the Central Food Laboratory found that the test for cotton seed oil is Spositive. He also found the saponification value as 196.8. The petitioner was, therefore, convicted and sentenced as stated above.

(3.) Mr. C.L Prem, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Director of Central Food Laboratory failed to give the percentage of the cotton seed oil which was found in the sample and therefore it cannot be held to be adulterated. He also contends that rule 44(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, which prohibits the sale of mixture of edible oils, does not cover the present case because the mere presence of another oil cannot be termed as mixture. Moreover, he submits, no charge for contravening rule 44(e) was framed by the trial court. He refers to various authorities in support of his contentions which I will presently discuss.