BALLABH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the criminal proceedings launched against the applicant under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act pending against the applicant in Criminal Case No. 809 of 1981 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.

(2.) Brief facts for the purposes of deciding the present application are that a sample of mustard oil was taken by the Food Inspector on 20th Jan., 1979. The sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst whose report dated 28.2.1979 reveals that soponification value was in excess of the prescribed standard for the mustard oil. A complaint was thereafter filed against the applicant which was registered as Criminal Case No. 1243 of 1980 State Vs. Sri Ballabh.

(3.) Learned counsel for applicant has urged in this application that on the report of the Public Analyst and also from the statement of the Public Analyst recorded under Sec. 240 Cr. P.C. the applicant has not contravened any provision of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). In support of his argument the learned counsel for the applicant referred to the standard prescribed for imported rapeseed oil A.17.18 which prescribes the soponification value as 166-198. On the aforesaid basis it has been argued that at the relevant time there was no bar under the Act in selling the mixture of rapeseed oil and mustard oil and the soponification value being in conformity with the standard prescribed for the imported rapeseed oil, it could not be said that the oil which was sold was adulterated. Learned counsel appearing for the State has, however, urged that the mustard oil which had been sold by the applicant to the Food Inspector will be an adulterated oil in view of the provisions of Sec. 7 (i) and (iv). There cannot be any doubt that from the report of the Public Analyst the sample of mustard oil which was purchased from the applicant does not conform to the standard prescribed under item A. 17.06 as soponification value does not conform to the standard prescribed under this item. As far as the soponification value which has been found by the Public Analyst in the sample it does conform to the standard prescribed for imported rapeseed oil under item A. 17.18. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that rule 44 (e) of the Rules framed under the Act, which prohibits selling admixtures of two or more edible oils as an edible oil was not applicable to the present case in view of the proviso inserted by Notification No. GSR 732 (E) dated 5.12.1977 and Fourth Amendment by GSR 732 (E) dated 5.12.1977 vide GSR 821. dated 12.6.1978,