AKOLA OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED REPRESENTED THROUGH MR. V.P. NAND Vs. BUDHURAM MARANDI, FOOD INSPECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak, dated 30.7.1983 taking cognisance of an offence punishable under Section 16(1 -A)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act for short) against the Petitioner and opposite parties 2 and 3 is under challenge.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution report submitted by the Food Inspector, opposite party No. 2 is a partner of a firm named M/s Om Prakash Ramkumar of Charampa Bazar, Bhadrak, carrying on business in grocery goods. Opposite party No. 3 is a wholeseller of such goods at malgodown, Cuttack. Petitioner is a manufacturer of Vanaspati in the brand name of 'Yanasada'. On 19.1.1983, the Food Inspector purchased 1.500 grams of Banaspati from a sealed tin of Vanasaga manufactured by the Petitioner from opposite party No. 2 by observing all formalities on suspicion that the same was adulterated. The sample of Vanaspati, was examined by the Public Analyst according to whose report it did not conform to the standard prescribed for Vanaspati and, so it was adulterated. As the goods had been purchased from opposite party No. 3 which had been manufactured by the Petitioner, after obtaining sanction for prosecution, prosecution report was submitted against the Petitioner and opposite parties 2 and 3.

(3.) MR . S.C. Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, urged that during the year 1983 one of the standards prescribed for Vanaspati in item A. 19 Clause (v) was that the melting point as determined by capillary slip method should be form 31 °C to 37 °C. both inclusive. But the said item was amended by notification No. G.S.R. 744(E) dated 27.10.1984 by which 37 °C. was deleted and in its place 41 °C was substituted. Therefore, with effect from 27.10 1984, the melting point of Vanaspati as determined by capillary slip method shall be from 31 °C to 41 °C both inclusive instead 31 °C to 37 °C. both Inclusive. This amendment was brought in item 'A.19' of Appendix, 'B' of the Rules before judgment in the case was delivered and as the fact stands as present, the sample seized from opposite party No. 2 conformed to the prescribed standard. The Petitioner and for that matter the other accused persons namely opposite parties 2 and 3 did not commit the alleged offence. Prosecution is, therefore, liable to be quashed. He placed reliance on three decisions reported in : A.I.R. 1968 All 392, Shyam Lal v. State, 1974 F.A.C. 19, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Mai Ram alias Bhaya Ram and, 1974 F.A.C. 21, Sundar Lal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi.