NAGAR MAHAPALIKA Vs. PARMESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARMESAR son of Chunni Sao has been acquitted by the Additional City Magistrate, Varanasi on 3-10-1969 of an offence under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated mustard oil at his shop C. K. 68/23 Kachchi Sarai, Police Station Chauk on 27-9-1968 at about 12 noon,

(2.) THE case for the prosecution is that Kesho Prasad Singh, Food Inspector. Nagar Maha Palika, Varanasi went to the shop of the accused situate in Mohalla Kachchi Sarai at about 12 noon 27th September, 1968. The accused on who was running a grocer's shop (Perchoon ki dookan) was present. at that time. The Food Inspector informed him by tendering form No. 6 that he wanted a sample of the mustard oil which was being purchased by him for chemical examination. He purchased 375 grams of mustard oil from the accused on payment of Rs. 1. 50 P. at the rate of Rs. 4/-iper K. G. The said oil was divided in three parts and put in three separate inphials. which were sealed and labelled in the presence of the accused. The accused signed these labels. The Food Inspector obtained receipt for the sale which was also signed by the accused and the witnesses. When the accused signed the receipt he described the mustard oil as 'akhadya tail'. The Food Inspector gave one phial to the accused and retained the other two with himself. Out of these two phials retained W him. one was sent to the Public Analyst, Lucknow for examination and report. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst it was discovered that the mustard oil was adulterated. He, therefore, submitted his report to the Nagar Swastha Adhikari and obtained his sanction for prosecuting the accused under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act-He then filed a complaint on 22-3-1969 in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Varanasi, which is Ex. Ka-6 on the record. The accused was, thereafter charged for having committed an offence under Section 16 (1) (a) of the said Act.

(3.) THE accused pleaded not guilty. In his statement recorded under Section 342, Cr. PC he took up the plea that he had informed the Inspector at the time of sale that the mustard oil in question was non-edible oil (Akhadya tail ). In short, the defence was that at the time when the sample was taken by the Food Inspector the accused informed him that the mustard oil which was being sold by him was non-edible oil and as such he had not committed any offence. The accused examined Sheikh Nazir Ahmad D. W. 1 in his defence. Nazir Ahmad is the landlord of the shop where the accused carries on his business. The defence case as elaborated by Nazir Ahmad in his statement is that the oil in question is used for colouring purposes and not meant for human consumption.