AJODHIYA PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted for an offence under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 having exposed for sale of adulterated mustard oil. It is alleged that the food inspector purchsed a sample of mustard oil from the shop of the applicant, devided it into three equal portions and as required by law seat one of the portions to the chemical examiner's report revealed that the sample contained a small portion of linseed oil, that is, the sample sent was found to be mainly mustard oil, but it revealed a small quantity of linseed oil mixed with it. THEreupon, the applicant was charged with an offence under Section 7/16 of the Act and prosecuted. THE defence set up was that the applicant never sold mustard oil. That means a denial of all the allegations of the prosecution. THE learned Magistrate believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the applicant. On appeal by the applicant the conviction was maintained and the appeal was dismissed. Now the applicant has come before this Court in revision. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the charge framed was wholly insufficient to convey the substance of the offence and thus the proceedings founded on such a charge were illegal and ought to be quashed. Reliance was placed on Girwar1 v. State (Cr. Revision No, 774 of 1968.), decided on 28th January, 1970 by the High Court. THE second argument was that one of the prosecution witnesses himself, in his statement before the court, was not sure whether the food inspector purchased mustard oil or 'Gabra' oil. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Gabra oil is a commodity which is also sold in the market and which is a mixture of mustard oil with another edible oil. It has not been disputed that linseed oil is also an edible oil. Thus what has been established against the applicant is that what was presented for sale as pure mustard oil also contained a small quantity of another edible oil. According to the relevant table attached to the prosecution of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Rules framed there-under the standard of purity of mustard oil has been mentioned. THE report of the chemical examiner shows that the mustard oil as such was up to the standard except this that the sample of mustard oil contained a very small quantity of linseed oil. Thus the mustard oil by itself has not been found by the chemical examiner to be adulterated as all the standard ingredients were present and it was not deficient in any way. THE question then arises whether by mixing it with another edible oil it would become adulterated within the definition of that word in the Act. I doubt it. A mixture of mustard oil and linseed oil would be edible and if a seller represents such a mixture as pure mustard oil, it would be a case of cheating or deception. It is well settled that provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are not concerned with cheating and deception by sellers of Food stuff. Moreover, I find that in the charge framed it was not mentioned in what manner mustard oil sold by the applicant was found to be adulterated. A charge must always be so framed that the person charged may have proper notice of what he has to meet and as to what were the ingredients which brought the food stuff sold within the mischief of the Act as an adulterated food stuff. I repeat that a mere description that the sample collected from the shop of the accused was adulterated, in my opinion would not amount to any legal charge. Learned Government Adocate contended that Section 537 Cr. P. C. (Old) would cure such an error or irregularity. Whether the lack of essential ingredients would bring any error or irregularity in the charge is not a question which sold detain me. Suffice it to say that in such matters in which the consequences are hard and heavy to-wards the accused, there mast always be a certainty about the proceedings. A charge in a general form may lead to the abuse that the prosecution at a later stage may bring in any evidence to the prejudice of the accused. Thus the prejudice becomes inherent in a matter of nature of the charge under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. For the reason given above. I allow this revision, set aside the conviction and sentence of the applicant and acquit him of the charges. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded. THE accused is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Revision Allowed.