RADHEY LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application in revision has to be allowed. The applicant is a ghee dealer at Rishikesh. On 30-10-1961, PW 1 U.S. Sharma, Food Inspector of the Municipal Board, took a sample of ghee from him for analysis. In his report dated 30-10-l961, the Public Analyst, U.P. reported that the Ghee in question was adulterated on account of the following factors:-

(2.) The difference in the first two items was considered to be so negligent that it was ignored by the Sessions Judge. Regarding the excess of free fatty acids, it was observed by the Sessions Judge at page 8 as follows:-

(3.) From the above quotation, it is amply clear that the excess of free fatty acid contents in the instant case was not considered by the Sessions Judge to be large enough as to amount to adulteration of ghee. However, at page 10 of his judgment, he observed:-