MALIK, J. - (1.) THESE are four Government appeals against the orders of acquittals passed in four cases for prosecution under the United Provinces Prevention of Adulteration Act, Act No. 6 of 1912.
(2.) IT would be convenient to take up the three cases, Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1951, Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1951 and Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1951 together, and Criminal Appeal No. 420 of 1951 separately. In Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1951 and Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1951 the accused Balmakand and Amar Nath respectively were charged with having sold adulterated Lahi oil, while in Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1951 Amar Nath was prosecuted for having sold adulterated Alsi oil.
(3.) THE accused are wholesale dealers. The Sanitary Inspector suspected that the Lahi and Alsi oils sold by the accused were adulterated and he thereupon went and purchased some quantity of oils. These he sent to the Public Analyst, U. P. Government, for analysis and report. The Analyst found that the samples sent were all adulterated and thereupon the accused were prosecuted before Sri R. D. Pande, Additional Magistrate, 1st class, Naini Tal. The learned Magistrate tried the cases summarily and acquitted the accused on the ground that the accused were protected by Section 6 of the Act. It is against these orders of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate that these appeals have been filed. It has been urged on behalf of the State that the view taken by the learned Magistrate that the accused were entitled to rely on Section 6 was erroneous. Section 4 of the Act provides that "Whoever sells to the prejudice of the purchaser any article of food, or any drug which is not of the nature, substance, or quality of the article or drug demanded by such purchaser, or sells or oilers or exposes for sale or manufactures for sale any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature, substance, or quality which it purports to be ...... shall be punished for the first offence with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees and for a second or any subsequent offence with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or imprisonment of either description not exceeding three months or both." It is not necessary to quote the proviso. The case for the prosecution was that the accused sold or offered or exposed for sale an article of food which was not of the nature, substance, or quality which it purported to be. ;