VIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. This revision of Vireodra Kumar was admitted on the point of sentence only. But having read the judgments of the two lower Courts and after hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist, I am of the opinion that this revision should be disposed of on merits of the case.

(2.) REVISIONISTS Virendra Kumar is a Shopkeeper of Kasba Chhibramau, district Farrukhabad. On 17th November, 1985, Food Inspector purchased sample of Ghee from the revisionist and sent the same to public analyst In report dated 26th December, 1985 public analyst found butyre-refracto meter reading at 40 degree centigrade as 41 minimum reichert value as 30 oleic acid 6. 8% and moisture. 4%. Entry at serial No 411. 0. 21 of Anpcndix-3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act prescribes standard for 'ghee' in a Table, For U. P. , the standard prescribed for Ghee is butyre refracto ineter reading at 40 degree centigrade 40. 0 to 43 0 minimum reichert value 26, oleic acid 3. 0% and moisture 0 5% The only variation from the prescribed standard found in the sample of Ghee was oleic acid 6. 8% against 3%. The two lower courts found the sample in variance with the prescribed standard and held the sample adulterated under Clause (m) of Section 2 (i-a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Apt. The learned counsel for the revisionist has challenged this finding and has relied upon aforementioned Clause (m) and the case of Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow v. Mushir Ahmad. 1978 C* LJ 200.

(3.) OLEIC acid denotes frasbness of 'ghee'. If Ghee is kept for a longer time and in open container the acidity is likely to increase due to oxidation process. If the revisionist kept the 'ghee* in open container for some time oleic acid in the 'ghee' could increase and the variability from the prescribed limit was solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency. When this was the position despite presence of 6. 8% oleic acid in the Ghee the proviso of Clause (m) was attracted and revisionist being entitled to benefit of doubt could not be guilty of selling adulterated 'ghee* as defined in Clause (m) on the material given 10 the two lower courts judgments, I hold that the revisionist could not be held guilty of seeling adulterated 'ghee*.