BAISAKHURAM JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner runs a kirana shop wherein he also sells various types of oils. Dr. I.D. Kalwani (P.W. 1), Assistant Surgeon took the sample of coconut oil from that shop on 4-1-1972. He paid Rs. 2.251 as cost of 375 grams of the oil. Dr. Ralwani (P.W. 1) is then said to have divided that oil into 3 protions and put one each in 3 allegedly clean bottles' and sealed them. He gave one of such bottles to the accused and sent the, other to the Public Analyst. According to the report (Exhibit P-5) of the Public Analyst the coconut oil was found to be adulterated.

(2.) The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that before the taking of sample of the coconut oil, sample of mustard oil (Sarsoon oil) was taken and thereafter it was poured back from those bottles and then without over again cleaning those bottles, the sample of the coconut oil was taken. Thus according to him the bottles were not clean which was statutory requirement. The petitioner had taken this plea even it the trial Court which was negatived.

(3.) Had this been so, the petitioner would have himself made a grievance about this at the earliest occasion. As stated above, none of the other prosecution witnesses has supported this fact. In my opinion, both the Courts below have rightly rejected the evidence of Ramji (P.W. 3) so far at the plea of the petitioner is concerned that earlier the sample of the Sarsoon oil was taken.