HIRA LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Him Lai has been convicted and sentenced under section 16 read with section 7 of the [Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to undergo R. I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 by order dated 28-2-1977 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh.

(2.) ON 3-12-1975 at about 1.20 P. M , Dharmdeo Yadav, Food Inspector, P. W. 1, had taken sample of mustand oil from the appellant in Doharighat, district Azamgarh. The Public Analyst found that the sample contained 21% linseed oil. Rule 44 (e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 prohibits mixture of two or more edible oils, therefore, it was considered adulterated under section 2 (i) (a) of the Act.

(3.) THE appellant's counsel next contended that the Food Inspector made no compliance of the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act in the sense that he did not call one or more persons of the locality at the time of taking sample. This question is not of importance in this case because the taking of sample of mustard oil by the Food Inspector is admitted. THE only difference between the version of the prosecution and the version of the appellant is that according to the prosecution the sample was taken from the shop of the appellant and according to the appellant it was taken from his house. It is obvious that one part of the sample was given to the appellant. If the appelllant was not satisfied with the report of the Public Analyst, he could have got his own sample analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory as provided under section 13 of the Act. THE appellant did not take resort to this procedure. THErefore, omission to make compliance of sub-Sec. (7) of section 10 in the instant case has caused no prejudice to the appellant. In this aspect of the matter, this contention is without force.