ATMA RAM PODDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these applications have been heard together as both the samples of the mustard oil had been taken at the same stage of manufacturing process and both the cases are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The facts in both the cases are same. On 29th August, 1973 two samples of Mustard Oil, during the process of manufacture were taken from the Oil Mill of the petitioner and both the samples were sent to Public Analyst, Bihar at Patna. The original report of the Public Analyst is not available in the record of the Court below in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 403 of 1980 (R). However it has been submitted that the Public Analyst found the samples adulterated with linseed and sisam oil. On the basis of this the competent authority for sanctioned prosecution of the petitioner. Since two samples Were taken and reports were received from the Public Analyst, two complaints were filed by the opposite party No. 2 against the petitioner. After the accused appeared, on an application filed on their behalf, the samples in question were sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, (the Director), and his opinion was obtained. According to the opinion of the Director, the samples of mustard oil was adulterated as defined in Section 2 (i-a) and (m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act). After hearing the parties charge was framed against the petitioner alone, as according to the record of the Court below, the other accused, the Manager of the Oil Mill, is an absconder.

(3.) Mr. Dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the Public Analyst found that the samples of the food (mustard oil) was adulterated with sesam oil and linseed oil, whereas according to the Director there was no foreign substance in the food articles. The Director found the samples to be one covered by Section 2 (i-a) and (m) of the Act. He submitted that in view of the difference of opinion between the Public Analyst and (he Director, the benefit should go to the petitioner and it should be held that the food article was not adulterated. His second ground is that the sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner was on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst and there is no sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner on the basis of the report of the Director. Mr. Dayal has challenged the legality of framing of charge on the ground of absence of sanction also. Mr. Dayal's third ground is that the Act prohibits manufacture for sale of adulterated food. 'According to him the sample of mustard oil was taken during the process of manufacrure and the oil at that stage was not for sale. He submitted that no case, therefore, has been made out for violation of Section 7 of the Act.