RAM SARAN DASS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Saran Dass petitioner was brought up for trial under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and having been found guilty thereof, was convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, in an elaborate and lucid judgment dated 18.9.1981 upheld the conviction, but reduced his sentence to three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Feeling aggrieved, Ram Saran Dass has now come up in revision.

(2.) ON 27th January, 1980, Shri A.N. Sharma, the then Government Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. K.R. Rathee went to the shop of the petitioner situated in the main bazar, Gohana, and purchased 375 grams of mustard oil from him, for analysis. One Ganga Ram was also summoned at the spot. The sample of the mustard oil was sent to the Public Analyst, who vide his report, Exhibit P.D., opined that the saponification value was 182.4 against the maximum prescribed standard of 177. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, the petitioner was prosecuted.

(3.) THE first argument raised with little persistence by Mr. Rathor in support of this revision petition is that according to item A. 17.06, the saponification value of mustard oil should be 168 to 177 and if the saponification value found by the Public Analyst in his report, Exhibit P.D., was 182.4, the increase in the saponification value was negligible due to the fact that the impurity in the mustard oil could be upto 70% by weight, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the sample was adulterated. It has now been authoritatively laid down by a Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Teja Singh, 1976 P.L.R. 433, that no resort can be had to the process of any addition or subtraction of the percentages of variation from the prescribed standard for arriving at a conclusion that the article is not adulterated or that marginal deviation from the prescribed standard could be ignored. Consequently this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner must be rejected.