STATE Vs. SHANKER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned P.P. for the State. The respondent has been acquitted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Food Inspector took a sample of 'Til' oil on 19-1-76 and after dividing the sample into three equal parts, one part was sent for analysis. I need not mention the facts of the case in detail. In view of the fact, the point in this appeal is very limited. The learned Magistrate has recorded acquittal on the grounds that Rule 14 and Rule 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules have not been complied with. I have been carried through the finding as arrived at by the learned Magistrate regarding the compliance of Rules 14 and 16. I find substance in what has been held by the learned Magistrate while dealing with the question of non-compliance of Rule 14. Rule 14 enjoins the Food Inspector to put the samples in clean dry bottles and cork them and fasten them in such a way so that the leakage, evaporation may not be possible. The sample bottle produced in court was observed to be leaking and the Food Inspector was examined on this aspect and he stated that all the three bottles were similarly closed and sealed. On that basis, the learned Magistrate held that the bottles were not properly closed and sealed so as to avoid leakage. The learned Magistrate has also considered the effect of leakage on production of free fatty acid and the prosecution has failed to prove that no increase of free fatty acid could take place as a result of improper closing and sealing.

(2.) In my opinion the learned Magistrate was right in holding that the compliance of Rule 14 was not made.

(3.) So far as the finding on Rule 16 is concerned, in my opinion, the same cannot be sustained. Rule 16 deals with the method of packing. Nothing has been pointed out as to how the Rule 16 was contravened but in view of non-compliance of Rule 14, the acquittal of respondent deserves to be sustained.