MAKHANLAL BHOWMIK Vs. RAM BHAKAT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued at the instance of the District Health Officer) Jalpaiguri, against an order of acquittal and an order under Section 13, Bengal Food Adulteration Act, passed by the Magistrate of the District.

(2.) The facts are not seriously in dispute. The Sanitary Inspector seized the stock of mustard oil which was found stocked by a firm of merchants at Banerhat in that District. He took samples from different portions and in analysis it has been found that the whole of the oil was highly adulterated. He had after seizure offered the price. 'It must also be pointed out that in this case prosecution was sanctioned not merely for selling mustard oil but for all the offences connected with mustard in Section 6, Bengal Food Adulteration Act. The Magistrate found that the mustard oil was highly adulterated. He considered that because at a considerable distance the Firm had a factory for soap-making the storing might be for such purpose though the storing was not at the place of soap making and no proof at all was given on behalf of the Firm that storing was actually for any such purpose. The Magistrate therefore considered that as it was a compulsory sale to the Sanitary Inspector there can be no prosecution under Section 6 of the Act. He then ordered under Section 13 of the Act that "the seized oil shall be made unfit for human consumption and sold by the Chairman of the District Board and the sale proceeds may be made over to the accused Firm provided that if after the oil has been made unfit for human consumption the accused firm be desirous of using the said oil in their soap factory and satisfies the Chairman, District Board that the oil will be used only in soap making the oil shall be returned to the accused firm." In this Rule both the orders of acquittal and the order under Section 13 are called in question.

(3.) We will, therefore, proceed to take them up one by one. As far as the acquittal is concerned it may be pointed out that the case on which the learned Magistrate has relied is not applicable to the present case, but at the same time it must be said that the position is not really very satisfactory as far as the case law is concerned. I shall proceed briefly to refer to the cases.