FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. RAMAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the complainant is directed against the order of acquittal date 23rd December 1976 passed by Shri R. N. Agarwala, II Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura.

(2.) THE Food Inspector, Hira Lal Gola of Municipal Board, Vrindaban visited the Parchuni shop of Raman Lal, respondent, situated in Retia Bazar, Vrindaban town on 24-11-75- at about 1 p.m. He found about 10 kilo-grams oil in a canister which Raman Lal was exposing for sale. On enquiry Raman Lal gave out that the oil was L.aha oil. THE Food Inspector disclosed his identity to Raman Lal and gave him a notice of his (Food Inspector) intention to take a sample of the oil for analysis. He purchased 375 grams oil on payment of Rs. 2.05 P. and obtained its receipt from Raman Lal respondent. He sealed the oil in three phials in equal quantity and observed all the rules and procedures in respect of the taking of the sample. THE necessary documents were also prepared. A phial of sample oil was handed over to the respondent and a receipt was obtained in token thereof.

(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge took the view that it was not proved that Laha oil or linseed oil ('Alsi-ka-Tel) was used for human consumption and was edible oil. Hence it could not be said that the accused had contravened the provisions of section 7 of the Act punishable under section 16 (1) of the same Act. He further observed that the accused had informed the Food Inspector at the time of the taking of the samp'.e that the oil in question was not edible oil and for this reason as well the accused could not be said to have committed an offence. Rule 44 (e)prohibited sale of a mixture of two or more edible oils. Since it was not proved Laha oil and linseed oil were edible oils there was no contravention of Rule 44 (e)THE learned Judge, therefore, acquitted Raman Lal, accused.