RAKESH MOHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated January 27, 1981, affirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for storage of adulterated mustard oil for sale.

(2.) DR . J.K. Bajaj alongwith Dr. M.M. Jindal took sample of 375 grams of mustard oil from the business premises of petitioner on 23.12.1977 and sent the same to the Public Analyst for examination and report. The Public Analyst, in his report, Exhibit, P.D., opined that the sample was of adulterated mustard oil. The ground on which the sample was held to be adulterated by the Public Analyst is that the saponification value of the contents of the sample was 178. I against the maximum prescribed standard of 177. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, the petitioner was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-.

(3.) THE solitary argument raised with the little persistence by Mr. Gaur in support of the revision petition is that according to item A. 17.06, the saponification value of mustard oil 168 to 177 and if the saponification value found by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, in this report. Exhibit P.G. was 178.1 the increase in the saponification value was due to the fact that the impurity in the mustard oil could be up to 7.0 percent by weight and, therefore, it can not be said that the sample was adultered. To buttress this argument reliance has been placed on decisions in Santosh Kumar Dutta v. Chairman, Sapatgram Small Town Committee and another, 1975 (1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 158 and Badri Prasad v. State, 1979 Food Adulteration Journal 228. The identical contention was raised before the Appellate Court. It has been so adequantly and lucidly met by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in paragraphs No. 18 to 23 of his judgment that it would be obviously wasteful and repeatable to cover the same ground over again and agreeing with his findings that if the increase in the saponification value could be due to the impurity upto 7% the Director Central Food Laboratory could have said so; that the saponification value in Mustar oil according to the Item A 17.06 ranges from 168 to 177 and that if there could be further increase beyond 177 as is sought to be argued, the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, would not have said that the sample was adulterate. I would, therefore, reject the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The aforesaid cases cited by the learned counsel have already been distinguished by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is needless to refer to these decisions because the ratio thereof is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.