BRIJ MOHAN DAS AND ANR. Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are applications in revision, in which a common question of law arises, by persons who have been convicted tinder Sec. 4, U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1912.

(2.) In Criminal Revision No. 177 the relevant facts as found by the learned Magistrate can be stated shortly. Brij Mohan Das is the proprietor of a shop known as the Producing Company, Benares, and Jagan Nath Prasad is an employee who was in charge of the shop on 18-2-1946. On that date the Sanitary Inspector of the Benares Municipality visited the shop in company with the Health Officer and purchased a sample of mustard oil which was offered for sale in the shop. The learned Magistrate has found as a fact that the substance sold to the Sanitary Inspector was sold under the description of pure mustard oil. The sample taken by the Sanitary Inspector was sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst appears to be no longer on the record, but it is not in dispute that he found that the mustard oil contained a substantial adulteration of rape seed oil. Jagan Nath Prasad was convicted for exposing for sale and selling, and Brij Mohan Das for manufacturing, the oil in question, and an application in revision to the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Benares was rejected.

(3.) On behalf of Jagan Nath Prasad it has been argued that he has committed no offence as the sale of the mustard oil was not to the prejudice of the purchaser, reliance being placed upon proviso (b) to Sub-section (1) of the Act which provides that no article shall be deemed to have been sold to the prejudice of the purchaser: