P.N.Goel - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 12-3-1975 passed by Sri S. B. Singh, Corporation Magistrate Kanpur acquitting the respondent of the offences punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
(2.) RAM Autar respondent carried on a shop in premises No. 125/6 Block K Govind Nagar in the City of Kanpur. He also used to live in this shop. According to the prosecution Sri V. S. Misra, Food Inspector (PW 1) took sample of mustard oil from the respondent on 23-11-1972 at 9.50 A.M. from the above mentioned premises. The sample was divided into three parts- one part was sent to the Public Analyst,. On 23-1-1973 Public Analyst gave report that the oil contained 30.02% lin-seed oil (Ex. Ka. 4). Thereafter the respondent was prosecuted on two counts :- (1) The respondent did not have a licence to sell mustard oil and thereby committed breach of rule 50, and (2) The mustard oil in question was adulterated. Defence of the respondent was that he was not used to deal in mustard oil, that he had brought about 4 Kgms. oil in a tin for his consumption, that the Food Inspector forcibly took sample from the said mustard oil, that to take the sample the Food Inspector obtained a measure from the neighbouring shop and that, therefore, the oil in question was found adulterated.
(3.) THE Magistrate found that the respondent was not a dealer in mustard oil, that, therefore, it was not necessary for him to take licence under rule 50, that the prosecution was bad for want of sanction by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, that the prosecution had not made compliance of rules 7 and 18 and that the prosecution had also not made compliance of Rule 9 (j). On these grounds the magistrate acquitted the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard at length and the entire record has been perused carefully. The respondent's counsel did not come up to support the order acquitting the respondent.;