ABDUL ALIM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default further R.I. for two months.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 4-8-1977 at about 4 P.M. the applicant was found displaying for sale at his shop in village Parham adulterated mustard oil (Sarson Ka Tel). A sample of the said oil taken by the Food Inspector was found by the Public Analyst per his report dated 20-9-1977 to contain about 20% linseed oil whereas the permissible maximum limit for foreign oil is 7% because this is the limit for foreign oil seeds permitted in mustard vide Entry No. A-05.15 in Appendix B to the Act. The applicant's case was that the oil was not for sale. He also noted on Form VI, the notice, that the article of food was Lahi Ka Tel. The courts below have, however, believed the prosecution case that the oil in question was being displayed for sale as Sarson Ka Tel. This finding is binding on this Court. The note of the applicant on Form VI cannot be of any avail when the courts below have found believing the Food Inspector that he had specifically asked for Sarson Ka Tel and the applicant offered the oil in question to him. Moreover, the Food Inspector has also stated that Lahi oil and Sarson oil are the same commodity.

(3.) There was an attempt to attack the sanction, Ex. Ka. 6, as defective. The mere fact that the offence committed has not been noted in Ex. Ka. 6 cannot in any way vitiate the conviction. The sanction order clearly authorises the Food Inspector to launch prosecution against the applicant whose particulars are given therein. There is, therefore, no substance of the argument that the sanction order is defective.