NISHIKANTA SAHA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was issued upon the Deputy Commissioner, Sylhet, to show cause why a conviction and sentence under Section 18 read with Section 6(1), Assam Pure Food Act, (Assam Act, 4 of 1982) should not be set aside. The material facts are not in dispute and are briefly as follows : There is in the town of Kharimganj a shop belonging to Messrs. Krishna Mohan and Brojo Mohan Saha in which the petitioner Nishi Kanta Saha was an employee. On n December, 1941 the Health Officer attached to the Municipality went to that shop and purchased a quantity of oil described as fuel oil (jalani thel). The Health Officer divided the oil purchased into three parts as required by the Act and sent one part to the Public Analyst, Shillong, for analysis. The Public Analyst reported as follows: I am of opinion that the same is a sample of the oil which contains a large proportion of mustard oil and also certain portion of oil from Argemona Mexicana. This is a sample of adulterated mustard oil.

(2.) On being requested to supply further details the Public Analyst submitted a further report which reads as follows: As regards the other sample from Krishna Mohan Brojo Mohan Saha (Sample No. 16 (c)) the detailed report is attached herewith. The sample is not genuine by reason of its low Iodine value and B.R. reading and high saponification value that of a mustard oil, neither it is a pure fuel oil. The nitric acid test also shows it to be a contaminated mustard oil.

(3.) On receipt of this report the present petitioner Nishi Kanta Saha and two other persons were placed on their trial under Section 18 read with Section 6(1), Assam Pure Food Act. The present petitioner was convicted under that section and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40 only and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The two co-accused were given the benefit of the doubt and were acquitted. In giving evidence in the case the Health Officer was rather vague in his description of the transaction. He merely stated in his examination-in chief that he obtained samples in three phials according to the procedure. In cross- examination the witness stated: The firm never said that it was mustard oil. They said and advertised it as fuel oil (jalani thel). I do not remember if they stated that they stooked pure mustard oil for human consumption separately. They never sold the oil in question as mustard oil to anybody within my knowledge.