NANDALAL PAL Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against the conviction of the petitioners under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one year passed on them thereunder. The subject -matter of the prosecution was mustard oil which on chemical analysis was found to be adulterated being mixed with linseed oil.

(2.) MR . Talukdar appearing in support of the Rule takes amongst others two major objections to the finding of the Courts below and these are, first, that there is nothing on record to connect the report of the chemical analyst with the sample of oil that was seized from the shop of the petitioner and secondly that all the prescribed tests not having been undertaken in this case, the analysis that was done was not in accordance with the requirements of the law and the analyst not having been examined in the case, the Courts below fell into an error in basing the conviction on that report of the analyst in this case.

(3.) SO far as the first contention is concerned, there is indeed no evidence to connect the report of the chemical analysis, Ext. 3, in the case, with the sample of mustard oil that was taken by the Food Inspector P. W. 1. There is nothing in the evidence of P. W. 1 which may connect Ext. 3 with the sample in question. This contention of Mr. Talukdar must be given effect to.