SAWAL RAM AGARWALA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case to which these two Rules relate have been fully set forth in the judgment of the Appellate Court and I do net think it necessary to recapitulate them here. The convictions against which these Rules are directed are under Section, 6 read with Section 21, Bengal Food Adulteration. Act of 1919, and relate to two samples of mustard oil which were purchased by the Sanitary Inspector of the District of Rangpur from a shop situated within the Municipal limits of Gaibanda. Section 6 prohibits the sale of mustard oil which is not derived exclusively from mustard seed, but it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that this section should be read with Section 5, which would have the effect of introducing other consider rations. I am not prepared ,to accept this contention. Section 6 is, in; my opinion, an entirely distinct and self-contained section and ought to be interpreted as it stands. Its provisions are clear and all that the prosecution is required to establish in order to secure a conviction based on Section 6 read with Section 21 is that the two samples of mustard oil which were admittedly in the shop of petitioner No. 1 and which were admittedly sold to the Sanitary Inspector-by petitioner No. 2, were; not derived exclusively from mustard seed. This the prosecution has sought to do by tendering in evidence the report of the Public Analyst, of the District of Rang-pore.

(2.) The admissibility of this report has been questioned on the ground that the samples in question were not obtained under any section of the Act, inasmuch as the Sanitary Inspector who purchased those samples had no jurisdiction within the limits of the Gaibandha Municipality. The trial and the appeal proceeded on the fooling that the Sanitary Inspector had in fact]no official status within the Municipality, and the prosecution case in the Courts below was that he ought to be regarded as having made the purchases in his private capacity, that is to say under Section 9 of the Act. In this Court it has however been discovered that, by Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the Act and published under Bengal Local Self-Government, Notification Mo. 1977 P.H. dated July 24, 1930 the Sanitary Officers of the District Board have been empowered under Secs.10 and 12 of the Act in all Municipalities which have no Sanitary Officers of their own, provided the District Board concerned gives its consent to their being so employed. It may be that this Rule has the effect of empowering the Sanitary Inspector to make the purchases in question but as his power to do so had all along been questioned by the defence, it was for the prosecution to prove that he had that power.

(3.) This the prosecution has not attempted to do, and unless and until it is proved that the Gaibandha Municipality has no Sanitary Officer of its own, and that the District Board of Rangpore has consented to the employment of its Sanitary Inspector in discharging the functions of Health Officer within the limits of that Municipality, it cannot be assumed that the Sanitary Inspector is in possession of the powers in question, and for the purposes of the present proceedings it must be held that he had not got those powers. A further contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in this connection is that by reason of the Sanitary Inspector not having been proved to possess the power referred to above, it cannot be held that the samples of mustard oil which he admittedly submitted to the District Analyst of Rangpore were submitted for analysis under the Act, and that the special rule of evidence contained in Section 14 under which the Public Analyst's certificate is made admissible in evidence without formal proofs has no application, I am not prepared to accept this contention. It seems to me to be immaterial whether the Sanitary Inspector, be he regarded as an official or as a private individual, obtained possession - of the samples in strict accordance with the provisions of the Act or not. What is important is that the safeguards which the Act lays down in Section 11 should be complied with, and this appears to have been done. I, therefore, hold that the samples in question were submitted for analysis under the Act and that the report of the Public Analyst is admissible in evidence.