ASU RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the accused Asuram against the appellate order of the Sessions Judge, Balotra dated 28. 7. 1959 maintaining his conviction under sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) and sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default a further simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the revision may be briefly stated as follows: - On 22. 7. 1959 S. S. Rathore, Food Inspector, Balotra purchased a sample of til-oil from the accused. THE til-oil thus purchased was filled in three bottles each of which was properly sealed and labelled. Out of the three bottles, one was sent by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst for examination; the other was given out to the accused and the third was kept for being produced in Court and was ultimately so produced. On an examination by the Public Analyst the til-oil was found to be not of the prescribed standard of purity. THE Food Inspector thereupon after obtaining the consent of the Assistant Director of Health Services, Jodhpur Division Jodhpur filed a complaint under sec. 16 of the Act and produced along with the complaint memorandum dated 31. 10. 1958 purporting to have been issued by the Assistant Director of Health Services consenting to the prosecution of the accused Asuram. Particulars of the offence were explained to the accused on his appearance in Court and his plea was recorded. He admitted that he was selling til-oil and that the Inspector purchased some til-oil as sample from him. He, however, alleged that he did not know that the til-oil was not of a standard purity and that it was adulterated. He further alleged that he had purchased that oil from Jodhpur Krishna Flour and Oil Mill in sealed tins and was selling in the condition in which he had purchased. It appears that he did not join any controversy over the question whether the sample which was sent for examination by the Public Analyst was not the one which was purchased from him and did not allege or suggest any tampering with the sample of til-oil purchased from him.

(3.) THE third contention urged by Mr. Chandmal is that there is no satisfactory proof that the til-oil was adulterated and was not of the standard purity. He contended that the report of the Public Analyst only says that it does not contain the prescribed standards of purity and does not indicate the premises for the conclusion. THE report of the Public Analyst, it was added, is very vague and cannot be considered a satisfactory proof of the fact that the til-oil was not of a standard purity. My attention was also invited to the statement of the Food Inspector who deposed that he did not know what was the standard of the purity of the til-oil. It is regrettable that the Food Inspector should have displayed such ignorance of the elementary matters. It would have also been desirable had the Public Analyst also indicated why he considered the sample by referring to the standards of purity required and pointing out how the sample was found deficient as lacking in standard purity. However, on a reference to the rules and the Appendix I find that the defect in the reports of the Public Analyst is merely of a formal kind. Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the Act states that standards of quality of the various articles of food specified in Appendix (b) to the Rules are as defined in that appendix. In the Appendix the standard of the purity of the til-oil has been described. THE Butyro-refractometer value of the tiloil as given in the Appendix is 58-0 to 61-0 and the Iodine value is 105 to 115. A reference to the Public Analyst's report will show that the Butyro value and the Iodine value of the sample examined by the Public Analyst are different from those required for a standard tiloil. Clearly, therefore, the sample cannot be considered as that of a pure tiloil and shall be treated as adulterated under sec. 2 of the Act. Mr. Chandmal contended that the differences in the value of the sample and of the standard tiloil are so minor and insignificant that they should be ignored and the sample should not be treated as an adulterated til-oil. I find it difficult to accept this contention. Sec. 2 of the Act does not permit this course to be adopted. I am satisfied that the sample of til-oil sold by the accused was adulterated and that he cannot avoid his responsibility for the guilt on this ground.