PRATAPRAI RAJANI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code the accused petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.12.2004 passed by Illrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in criminal appeal No. 259/2004 convicting the accused for offence under Section 7(1), read with Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/ -

(2.) BRIEF facts as alleged by the prosecution are that the accused Prataprai conducted a business through his firm Sunder Oil Mill on Mahakal Road, Ujjain for the sale and purchase of oil. On the date of incident i.e. on 2/8/1991 at 11.00 a.m. the Food Inspector Shri A.B. Choudhary along with witnesses purchased Rapeseed oil weighing 375 grms. After obtaining proper receipt he divided the sample into three in accordance with law, one was duly sent to the Public Analyst and finding that the sample was adulterated notice in form No.6 was duly sent to the accused. After obtaining consent from the health officer the complaint was filed before the competent Court. The accused abjured his guilt and stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. His main defence was that samples were not taken in accordance with law, he alleged that instead there was raid by the Food Department and samples were obtained during the said raid and signatures were obtained by the Food Inspector later from the witnesses.

(3.) FROM the submission of the counsel the record and the impugned judgment, I find that the sole question that is involved in the present revision is whether the conviction of the accused petitioner for sale of Raida oil is in accordance with the provision of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In consequence the pertinent question inevitably is whether Raida oil is an edible oil and what is the standard prescribed for its purity under Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.