BANSHILAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner Banshilal seeks to have the judgment of the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1979, revised. The learned Additional Sessions udge by his judgment has upheld the petitioners conviction and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment with Rs.1000/ - fine and in the alternative further rigorous imprisonment for three m0nths for selling adulterated ground -nm oil prohibited under section 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and made punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of that Act

(2.) THE petitioner has Mahalaxmi oil Mills at Anantpeth, Ujjain on 10 -2 -1977 in the evening Shankudeo Varma (P. W. 1), the Food Inspector in the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain in the company of Rajmal (P. W 2), who is peon under him, went to the Mills or the petitioner, bought from him 375 grams of ground nut oil for Rs.3.40, divided the oil into three parts and after completing the formalities, lent one of the parts of the sample to the Public Analyst, who on examining it on 18 -2 -1977, found that though it had conformed to all the prescribed standards, the contents of free fatty acid as Oleic acid instead of being 3% wail 3.8%, thereby making it adulterated.

(3.) THE first contention for the petitioner is that rule 17 (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to merely al rules) had not been complied with, inasmuch as the sealed packet bad not been sent to the public Analyst immediately or even on the succeeding working day. There is no force in this contention. Rule 17 (a) of the rules lays down as follows: