SITARAM THIRANI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a retail grocer near the bus stand at Sundergarh town. On 11.11.1974, the Food Inspector (P. W. 1) made a statutory purchase of til oil from him after serving notice under Ext. 1. He obtained a receipt in evidence of the sale under Ext. 2 and as he suspected adulteration, he got it analysed by the Public Analyst. Ext. 3 is the report of the Public Analyst showing that the sample til oil was adulterated. He obtained sanction under Ext. 4 and petitioner was prosecuted under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the' Act').

(2.) THE defence of the petitioner was that he was not selling til oil as food but only for the purposes of massaging on the body. When P. W. 1 asked for purchase of til oil he told him that he had til oil meant for massage.

(3.) IT is not disputed that P. W. 1 made a statutory purchase and on analysis the sample has been found to be adulterated Three questions have mainly been canvassed in support of the petitioner: -