JAIPAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant Jaipal has been convicted under Sec. 7(16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal by an Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution case was that a sample of mustard oil taken from the applicant on 31-12-75 was found adulterated. The analyst's report showed the sample to contain 8.9% linseed oil. The butyro refractometer reading and the Iodin value were also higher than the standard prescribed being 61 and 120.7 as against the prescribed maximum 60.5 and 110.

(2.) The only point urged is that considering standard prescribed for mustard under Art. A05.15 which fixed the limit of extraneous matter including edible oil seeds of any other variety of 7% admixture of different edible oil to this extent should be held within tolerable limits. This was also held in a Division Bench decision of this Court Badri Prasad Vs. State (1979 (II) FAC 119) . But this principle cannot help the revisionist because in this case the admixture is of the order of 8.9%.

(3.) Another point pressed was that there has been a breach of Sec. 11(7) because independent witnesses were not taken. I cannot agree that the mere fact that Bikhari was admitted to have been a witness in one or two other cases of sample taking debars him from being classed as an independent witness. The revision must, therefore, fail.