MAHESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revisionist Mahesh Chandra has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to R.I. for 8 months and a fine of Rs. 1500.00 in default further R.I. for three months.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 17-5-1977 at about 2 p.m. tho revisionist was found displaying for sale at his Kirana shop in village Barnahal adulterated mustard oil amongst the other things. A sample was taken by the food inspector and this mustard oil was found not to conform with the prescribed standard the B.R. reading, saponification value, iodine value being in excess of the maximum prescribed and Ploy bromide test being positive. The Public Analyst opined that the sample contained approximately 22% linseed oil. At the trial the revisionist had a sample referred to the Central Food Laboratory and the report of the Central Food Laboratory was that the B.R. reading at 400C was 64.4 as against the maximum of 60.5 and Saponification value was 183.2 as against the maximum of 177 and iodine value was 122.5 as against the maximum of 110. The Central Food Laboratory did not opine about the presence of linseed oil. The defence was that he had brought the oil for his own use and it was not for sale but the food inspector had taken the sample due to enmity. The courts below have overruled the defence believing the prosecution case. No infirmity could be shown in this finding that could justify interference in revision.

(3.) The learned counsel confined his argument to a plea for leniency on the ground that the revisionist was only 17 years old. This does appear to be the age from the record shown in the statement of the accused. The learned counsel further pointed out that it was a village shop and the oils are often secured from the village oil crushers which crush various kinds of oil and, therefore, sometimes mixtures result because of the presenter of remnants of earlier crushed oil seeds in the machine. He further alleged that there can be no gain in mixing linseed oil in the mustard oil for the rates of the two are same. There is no evidence about the rates in the present case but Considering the other factors in particular the age of the revisionist, I think even if it is taken that an offence was committed this is a fit case for giving benefit of the First Offenders Release on Probation Act.