RAM NAGINA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. S. Gupta, J. This criminal Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 29-11-1983, passed by Sri R. C. Chaturvedi, the then IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria, in criminal appeal No. 351 of 1982, affirming the judgment and order dated 8-1-1982, passed by Sri Hari Singh, the then Judicial Magistrate Kasiya, district Deoria, convicting the accused applicant under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him six months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000, and in default of the payment of fine to further undergo R. I. for six months.

(2.) THE prosecution claimed that on 26-6-81, at about 9. 00 a. m. THE Food Inspector Sri Nathi Prasad visited the shop of accused revisionist Ram Nagina, situate in Bazar Nebua, Naurangia, district Deoria and obtained sample of mustard oil which the accused revisionist was selling, for a consideration of Rs. 5. 25. On examination of the said sample by the Public Analyst, it was found that the sample in question contained 5% of linseed oil. THE Public Analyst opined that the sample in question was adulterated. THE accused revisionist was accordingly prosecuted and convicted by the trial Magistrate and on appeal lower appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused revisionist. Hence this revision.

(3.) A division bench this court consisting of Hon'ble S. Malik and M. P. Saxena, JJ. in Badri Prasad v. State, 1979 Vol. (16), A. C. C. , 238, have observed that mixture of other edible oil upto a limit of 7% was permissible in law with mustard oil, in view of the provisions of Rule 5 and A. 17. 06 and A. 05. 15 appears in Appendix B of the Rules. That being so, in the instant case the mixture of other edible oil being to the extent of 5%, I am of the opinion that the mixture of other edible oil was within permissible limit of 7% and as such the courts below have taken an illegal view that the sample in question was adulterated within the meaning of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. I accordingly hold that the conviction and sentence of the accused revisionist passed by the trial court and sustained by the lower appellate court was bad in law. The revision is, therefore, allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are hereby set aside.