MADAN MOHAN DEMMA MAL LTD. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants Messrs. Madan Mohan Demma Mal Ltd. and O.P. Manglik, the Manager of Madan Mohan Demma Mal Ltd. were convicted under Section 462 read with Section 537 of the Calcutta Municipal Act for storing for sale adulterated mustard oil in Tank Wagon No. 75612 and sentenced each to a fine of Rs. 1000/ -.

(2.) THE facts, as far as they are beyond dispute, are briefly that under an arrangement between the Enforcement Branch of the Calcutta Police on the one hand and the U. P. Oil Millers' Association on the other the. Honorary Secretary of the U. P. Oil Millers' Association informed the Deputy Commissioner of the Enforcement Branch on 3 -1 -1955 by Ex. S. of the arrival of Tank; Wagon No. 75612 containing mustard oil belonging to Messrs. Madan Mohan Demma Mal Ltd. who are both the consignor and the consignee at Pathuriaghat Siding. Kalidas Ganguli, defence witness no. 9, a Sub -Inspector of the Enforcement Branch together with another Sub -Inspector went to the Corporation office with this letter and similar other letters and there they met the Food Inspector Dr. Bagui, p. w, 1 and then these three went to the Pathuriaghat Railway Siding where they met O.P. Manglik, the Manager of the Firm. Dr. Bagui disclosed Ws identity to him, and told him that he would take samples of the mustard oil from the tank when the appellant Manglik told him that the price was 8 annas for 12 OK. Dr. Bagui then showed him three dry phallus of 4 Oz. each with three corks and got on to the roof of the tank wagon with a peon of his and a representative of the firm, Manglik standing by the side of the wagon. The representative of the firm unlocked the lid of the wagon. The phials were attached to new strings and lowered into the tank and filled with oil. This oil was used for washing the phials and poured into a container which was then handed over to Manglik. The phials were again lowered into the tank and a fresh sample of oil was taken in each of these three phials. After they were taken out they were corked with the oil inside and the exterior of the phials was wiped with a new towel. Then Dr. Bagui got down with the rest and wrote all the four foils of this sample book. The three phials were sealed and labelled with; the last three foils, the first remaininsr in the samole book. The phial labelled with the 4th foil which is meant for the owner of the oil was made over to Mr. Manglik who signed the foil. Ex. 1, in token of the sale of the sample and of his receipt of one phial of the sample., rye of the phials was sent by Dr. Bagui to the Public , Analyst through his peon with a been book on, the very day. namely, the 3rd January 1955 and the other phial was krot with Dr. Bagui himself for future reference. On a preliminary analysis on to 3rd January 1955 the Public Analyst. P.W, 2, could not give any opinion, but on the 4th on a detailed analysis he found that the B.R. Index at 40.C was 60.4 and that the turbidity point on Baular's test fop ground -nut oil was positive at 28.C and he accordingly held the sample to be adulterated with ground -nut oil. The sample was given the P.I. No. 227 in the first foil which was retained on the sample book, on the second loll which was affixed to the sample kept with the Pood Inspector himself for future reference and also on the third foil affixed to the sample sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. In the Laboratory of the public Analyst its registration number was 8731. The results of the final analysis were communicated to Dr. Bagui on the 4th January 1955 and on the same day the entire stock of mustard oil in the tank weighing 499 maunds and 20 seers was seized, sealed and left in the custody of the appellants (Exs. 4 -4(1)). Then on the appellants' bond and the bond of a third parrot the Health Officer of the Corporation of Calcutta allowed the appellants to remove the oil to their godown at Plot 56/1, Strand Bank Road where the receptacles containing the oil and also the lock of the godown were sealed with the corporation seal. Then a complaint was filed in court to the effect that the appellants stored for sale adulterated mustard oil.

(3.) BEFORE the trial began there was first a prayer on behalf of the defence for a fresh sample being taken. To this the Corporation objected. This prayer was rejected. Secondly, at the instance of the defence the sample left with Dr. Bagui for future reference was sent to the Director of Health Services, Government of West Bengal (Vide Order dated the 29th April 1955). The sample was analysed by court witness no. 1 on the 11th May 1955 and the report signed by defence witness no. 2 Dr. S.K. Chatterjee is Ex. G. According to it the saponification value of the sample was 175.5 and its iodine value was 106.8 and the turbidity point was 27C which indicated the presence of ground -nut oil. There was also either insoluble bromide precipitate indicating the presence of a small amount of linseed oil. On behalf of the defence a prayer was made for examination of one Om Prakash, the Oil Expert to the U.P. Government on commission at Kanpur and this was turned down by the learned Magistrate. The appellants thereafter appeared to have sent on their own initiative the sample made over to them to Om Prakash for examination and his report, Ex. P. is to the effect that the sample is free from adulteration.