PURSHOTTAM LAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first argument urged is that the tin containing oil, from which the sample was taken, was placed at the Chabutra of the revisionist shop by one Hansraj and was not for sale. Reliance was placed in this connection upon the cases Narain Das Vs. State, 1979 (1) F.A.C. 50 ; Sri Ganga Ram and another Vs. State of U.P., 1980 (1) F.A.C. 266 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Laxmi Narain Tandon and others, 1975 (2) F.A.C. 444 . In the last case it was held that store means storage for sale. In the first two cases it was held that the article should be for sale. Each case has to be examined in the light of its individual facts and circumstances. There is a finding of fact that the tin containing oil was not of Hansraj and his testimony has been rejected giving cogent reasons for the same. The finding of fact cannot be interfered with and the defence plea was rightly rejected and when the tin lay at the shop on the Chabutra and even accused simply claimed that it was of Hansraj and so it was not property for sale, which plea has been rejected, the courts below rightly held the article to be for sale and actually sale was made to the Food Inspector.

(2.) The next point urged is that mustard and linseed oil are both edible oils, so any mixing of the same would not constitute an offence. Reliance in that connection was placed upon the case of Ajodhya Prasad Vs. State of U.P., 1977 (2) F.A.C. 26 . Actually this case was decided on its individual peculiar facts. The quantity of mixture was not known. The mustard oil itself as such qua its ingredients confirmed to the standard prescribed under the Food Adulteration Act. Rule 44 of the Food Adulteration Rules was also not considered in this ruling. The matter now stands resolved by a later pronouncement of this Court, namely, Shyam Lal Vs. State, 1980 (2) F.A.C. 50 , holding that mixture of mustard oil and linseed oil is a breach of Rule 44 (e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. It is noteworthy that it is expressly stated that no person shall sell any of the articles by himself, through servant or agent as detailed under clause (e) a mixture of two or more edible oil as an edible is forbidden expressly. In the circumstances, mixing of linseed with mustard oil would constitute adulteration as to constitute, an offence. The sentence again is proper and not excessive.

(3.) In the result, the revision is summarily rejected. Revision dismissed.