(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 9th June, 1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ ). New Delhi allowing Criminal Appeal No. 103/1982 filed by the respondents, thereby setting aside the orders dated 5th and 8th April, 1982 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) Delhi.
(2.) ON 28th April 1978, the Food Inspector, gian Chand, PW2 went to the shop of m/s Gupta Stores (Respondent No. 3) at amar Colony Market, New Delhi at about 3. 45 pm and purchased a sample of mustard oil. The sample was divided into three parts and kept in three clean and dry bottles which were sealed and fastened by the Inspector at the spot. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst on 29th April 1978. By the Report dated 1st June 1978 the Public Analyst found the Butyro-refractometer reading at 40?c found to be 60. 8. i. e. , 0. 3 beyond the maximum permissible limit of 60. 5 for mustard oil. The complaint was filed on 4th October 1978. Two months thereafter on 6th December 1978, the resp6ndents exercised their right to have a sample sent for Analyst, Central Food laboratory at Mysore. That test report gave the Butyro-refractometer reading as 61. 4, i. e. , 0. 9 beyond the permissible limit.
(3.) THE learned MM declined to hold that the difference in the test readings was to the benefit of the accused. He held that the sample did not conform to the standard as laid own in the Item No. A 17. 06 of the Appendix b to the Prevention of Adulteration rules, 1955 (PFA Rules) and therefore the offence of adulteration within the meaning of PFA Act stood attracted. The learned MM held the Respondents guilty of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954, (PFA Act ). Respondents 1 and 2, the partners of the firm, were sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment of 3 months. The firm was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5000.