SATYA PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Satya Prakash against the judgment and order dated 23.6.1981 of Sri P.C. Joshi V additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor, dismissing the appeal brought against the judgment of Sri A.K. Agarwal, Munsif-Magistrate, I Class, Bijnor, who had convicted the applicant under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and had sentenced him to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand only.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case was that on 28.3.19/9 at about 11.30 a.m. Sri R.K. Sharma, Food Inspector, Saohara (District Bijnor) took a sample of 600 grams of edible mustard oil kept for sale in the shop of the accused in village Kuri Bangar. This oil was sealed in three clean phials and one of these, when sent to the public analyst, was found to be adulterated. The applicant was, therefore, prosecuted and subsequently sample in another phial was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory and he too found that it was adulterated. The applicant was, therefore, prosecuted and has been convicted as aforesaid.

(3.) It was contended that the charge in this case was wholly defective because it was framed on the report of the public analyst, which had been superseded by the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory and, therefore, on such a defective charge the applicant could not be convicted. The public analyst found that saponification value of the mustard oil examined by him was 188.6 and the iodine value was 122.8. As against this Director, Central Food Laboratory found that the saponification value of this sample was 182.7 and the iodine value was 116 4. Thus both the public analyst and the Director, Central Food Laboratory found that iodine value was more than 96 to 108 and saponification value more than 168 to 176 as prescribed. In the charge all that was said was that the iodine value was more than 110 and the saponification was more than 176 as found by the public analyst and, therefore, the mustard oil taken from the applicant's shop was adulterated. This charge was thus framed in accordance with report of the public analyst and also the Director, Central Food Laboratory. There is no doubt that it was wrongly said in the charge that as found by the public analyst the mustard oil was adulterated for these two reasons. But this to my mind was only a technical mistake because even if the report of the public analyst had been superseded by the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, the oil was found adulterated because its iodine value was more than 110 and its saponification value was more than 177. There was thus no defect in the charge which had in any way prejudiced the applicant.