KONJETI VENKATAPPAIAH Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the conviction of the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 56 of 1976 on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrates court, Ongole. The petitioner as the 2nd accused and two others as accused 1 and 3 were tried for an offence punishable under Sec. 16(1) read with Sec. 7(l)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The trial court acquitted A-3. A-l and A-2 preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted A-l and however confirmed the conviction and sentence of A-2, who was sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and also to pay a line of Rs. 2,000.00.

(2.) The case against the petitioner is that he sold adulterated groundnut oil to the Food Inspector P.W. 2. Both the courts below having concurrently found the sale of the oil as a fact, Shri Bheemaraju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner does not deny the sale at this stage. He however contended that there is no reasonable proof of the groundnut oil sold by the petitioner to be adulterated. In support of this submission he has drawn my attention to the report of the Public Analyst which shows that besides the prescribed tests the Public Analyst has conducted other tests. No doubt the Public Analyst has conducted more tests than prescribed under Appendix B. But it cannot be said that on this mere account the report of the Public Analyst is erroneous. The results obtained by the prescribed tests unmistakably indicate that the sample of ground nut oil purchased from the petitioner was adulterated in so far as the same contained 9% of free fatty acid as oleic acid as against the permissible 3%. The extra tests conducted by the Public Analyst were only to confirm his view of the ground-nut oil having been adulterated with castor oil. The confirmatory test cannot be considered to be such as to render nugatory the results obtained by the prescribed tests specially when there is absolutely nothing to show there was any irregularity in the manner in which the prescribed tests were conducted.

(3.) The next contention of Sri Bheemaraju is that it cannot be said that the ground-nut oil is adulterated within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He says that under Sec. 2(a) the articles sold by the vendor should not be of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and it should be to the prejudice of the purchaser. It is argued that by merely mixing a slight quantity of castor oil to ground nut oil the vendor cannot be deemed to have adulterated ground nut oil within the meaning of Sec. 2(a) of the Act. The argument is prima facie laudable, but it does not bear scrutiny. P.W. 2 the Food Inspector demanded ground nut oil. The accused offered the sample as ground nut oil. The Public Analyst found that the sample contained 4% of castor oil. It cannot but be said that the vendor sold ground nut oil which contained other substance not being ground-nut oil. The question, however, is whether it is to the prejudice of the purchaser. Shri Bheemaraju contends that the presence of castor oil in ground nut oil cannot be deemed to be prejudicial to the purchaser of the mixture. I am unable to accept this submission. Where a purchaser requires a particular article of food and if that article of food is not what it purports, it cannot but be said that the mixture is prejudicial to the purchaser. The seller of such mixture is certainly selling adulterated food within the meaning of Sec. 2(a) of the Act. In this view of the matter the petitioner is to be held guilty of having sold the adulterated ground nut oil. The conviction of the petitioner under the circumstances does not call for any interference.