SHAM LAL Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted under section 16 (1) (a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for having sold two types of edible oils in a mixed state. According to the report of the Public Analyst, the mustered oil sold by the petitioner contained more than 5 per cent and less than 10 per cent of til oil. It is a matter of common knowledge that til oil is a costly edible oil. The petitioner could not have deliberately added til oil to the mustered oil sold by him. It is quite likely that the mill in which mustered was extracted, had been used for extracting til oil at earlier occasion. Even otherwise the addition of til oil to mustered oil does not make the latter harmful In view of all these circumstances the petitioner deserves to get the benefit of doubt. I, therefore, allow this petition and order that the petitioner be acquitted.