G VENKATARAMARAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is filed against the Judgment in Crl.A.No. 142/90 dt. 3-12-90 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Guntur. This is a case of adulteration wherein the accused was convicted and punished for an offence under Sec.l6(l)(a)(i) read with Sec.7(i) and (2) (ia) and (m) of the P.F.A. Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in Abdul Gafoor vs. State of A.P. and contended that mixing a little of castor oil with groundnut oil doesnot amount to adulteration under Section 16(a)(i) but attracts Second proviso to Section 16. In that case the learned Judge held as follows:

(2.) The relevant facts which are not in dispute are the following: Petitioner was the accused in C.C.No.28/90, on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet in Guntur district. On 22-9-89 at about 3.15 P.M. the Senior Food Inspector, Guntur, inspected the business premises of the accused known as M/s. Laxmi General Stores, Chejerla village, Nekarikal Mandal of Guntur District. The accused had groundnut oil for sale in his shop. The Food Inspector purchased a sample of 450 grams of groundnut oil on payment of its price of Rs.13/-, for sampling and analysis. The Public Analyst., Hyderabad, who analysed one of the samples sent up to him found traces of castor oil in that sample. He also found that some of the tests indicated that the ground nut oil did not conform to the standard requirements. Petitioner was prosecuted for an of fence under Section 16 (l) (a) (i) read with Section 7 (i) and Sec.2 (ia) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Petitioner appealed to the Sessions Judge, Guntur, who affirmed the conviction as also the sentence of imprisonment. He however, reduced the cash penalty from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.2,000/-.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that castor oil is an edible oil as was found in Abdul Gafoor (1 supra) and as such, there was no adulteration as defined in Section 2 (ia) (m) of the Act. If there was no such adulteration, he submits that Section 16 (l) (a) (i) would not be attracted, since the prosecution had no case of misbranding within the meaning of Section 2 (ix) of the Act. He submits further that if Section 16 (l) (a) (i) was not attracted, the only offence would be contravention of Rule 44 (e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, (for short, 'the Rules') which falls within Section 16 (l) (a) (ii) of the Act. it is his further submission that in that event, the second proviso to the section would apply and it was not obligatory to impose the minimum sentence of imprisonment for six months. He also submits that Ex.P.10 report of the Public Analyst indicates that the standard of the of fending article was tested otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of entry A.17.03 of the Appendix 'B' of the Rules and hence the report should not have been acted upon to hold the accused guilty.