STATE Vs. BASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 27th March, 1978 at about 8-45 a. m. P. W. 1, the food Inspector attached to the Corporation of Madurai, purchased about 750 grams of gingelly seeds for Rs. 4. 50 for analysis. He divided the seeds so purchased into three equal parts and sealed them in three clean dry bottles and sent one such bottle to the Public Analyst and the other two to the Local (Health) Authority. The report of the Analyst Exhibit P-10, shows that the sample is unfit for human consumption as the free fatty acids content of the fat derived from the sample is in excess of the maximum allowable limit to the extent of 116 per cent. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above and the Sessions Judge in appeal acquitted him on the ground that the oil extracted from the sample seeds has been analysed and not the seeds. That order of acquittal is now challenged by the State.

(2.) IT cannot be said that the view taken by the Sessions judge is wrong. The sample that was taken by P. W. 1, the Food Inspector, is gingelly seeds and not gingelly oil. Appendix B to Prevention of Food adulteration Rules, prescribes the standard of quality of articles of food. IT is conceded that no standard of quality is prescribed for gingelly seeds. What has been analysed by the Public Analyst in oil extracted from the sample of the gingelly seeds and not the gingelly seeds. As the Food Inspector has not purchased the oil from the accused, it cannot be said that the article of food of which a sample is taken by the Food Inspector is adulterated. Section 2 enumerates the different circumstances when an article of food must be deemed to be adulterated. If the quality or the purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities which are in excess of the prescribed limit of variability as provided in section 2, then it could be said that there is adulteration. In 17. 11 in Appendix B, oil (gingelly) is said to be oil expressed from clean and sound seeds of Til (Sensamum indicum), black, brown, white or mixed. The standard prescribes therein is only for the oil and not for the seeds. The simple question is whether in the absence of any standard prescribed for gingelly seeds in appendix B, the report of the Public Analyst supplying the data for the oil extracted from the sample of seeds taken by the Food Inspector, could be used to find that the sample, namely, gingelly seeds in this case, has been adultered. Gingelly seeds by itself is an article of food, being a produce of agriculture in its natural form. The accused has been charged under section 2 (i-a), (f)also. Section 2 (i-a), (f) states that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption. Now what has been found by the Analyst as unfit for human consideration is not the seeds, but the oil extracted from the seeds. IT is not found that the seeds of which the sample is taken by the Food Inspector is unfit for human consumption on account of it consisting wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or being insect-infested or on account of any other cause. Under these circumstances, the accused cannot be convicted of the offence with which he is charged. The appeal fails and is dismissed.