GOPALDAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the applicant's conviction u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1003.00 with three months rigorous imprisonment in default by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise in this application are these On 1-5-1973 Balvirsingh Food Inspector Ujjain (P.W. I) purchased 450 Grams of mustard oil from the applicant and got it analysed by the public Analyst, who vide his report (Ex. P 8) reported that it was adulterated, inasmuch as it did not conform to the standard prescribed by the Rules made under the Act. The defence of the applicant was that the analysis did not indicate that the sample of oil purchased from the applicant was adulterated. This defence was, however, negatived by the Courts below.

(3.) The first question that arises for consideration is as to whether the sample of the mustard oil purchased from the applicant was or was not adulterated. The learned counsel for the applicant referred to the definition of the word "mustard" as given in Appendix B at serial No. 05.15 and stated that in accordance with this definition, the proportion of extraneous matter which includes dust, dirt, stones, lumps of earth, chaff, stem, straw, edible food grains, edible oil seeds of any other variety of any other impurity are not to exceed 7.0 per cent by weight, and are to be free from seeds of argemone maxicana Linn and that considering this definition the presence of linseed oil found by the Public Analyst cannot be said to make the sample of oil as adulterated. This contention is based on the aforesaid definition, which permits oil seeds of any other variety or impurity upto 7.0 per cent by weight The Public Analyst in his report has reported that the analysis revealed positive test for linseed oil. Even if the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is accepted, which am not inclined to accept, the fact is that according to the aforesaid report, the sample was found to beat variance with the standard fixed for mustard oil according to item no. A. 1/.06 as given in Appendix B of the Act. If according to section 2 of the Act, the quality or purity of the article of food falls below the prescribed standard, then it has to be treated as adulterated for the purpose of the Act. Learned counsel for the applicant was. therefore, unable to contend that even if in other respects the sample was not found to be in conformity with the standard prescribed by the Rules, even then the sample should not be treated as adulterated. Accordingly, the finding of the Courts below that the sample sold by the applicant the applicant was adulterated has to be maintained.