R.B.Lal - (1.) THIS appeal by the complainant is directed against the order of acquittal date 23rd December 1976 passed by Shri R. N. Agarwala, II Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura.
(2.) THE Food Inspector, Hira Lal Gola of Municipal Board, Vrindaban visited the Parchuni shop of Raman Lal, respondent, situated in Retia Bazar, Vrindaban town on 24-11-75- at about 1 p.m. He found about 10 kilo-grams oil in a canister which Raman Lal was exposing for sale. On enquiry Raman Lal gave out that the oil was L.aha oil. THE Food Inspector disclosed his identity to Raman Lal and gave him a notice of his (Food Inspector) intention to take a sample of the oil for analysis. He purchased 375 grams oil on payment of Rs. 2.05 P. and obtained its receipt from Raman Lal respondent. He sealed the oil in three phials in equal quantity and observed all the rules and procedures in respect of the taking of the sample. THE necessary documents were also prepared. A phial of sample oil was handed over to the respondent and a receipt was obtained in token thereof. One phial of oil sample was; sent to the Public Analyst for report and he reported that the sample contained about 22% linseed oil. A copy of this report was sent to the respondent by registered post. Dr. D. C. Singhal, Medical Officer of Health, Municipal Board, Vrindaban, accorded sanction to Food Inspector Hira Lal Gola to launch prosecution against the respondent and thereafter, the Food Inspector filed complaint against the respondent. The Magistrate committed the case to the court of session on 20-8-76. In the court of session, two charges were framed against the respondent; one for selling adulterated Laha oil which was an offence punishable under- sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly the Act), and the other for selling Laha oil in contravention of rule 44 (e)of the Rules framed under the Act. Raman Lal respondent admitted that the Food Inspector had taken a sample of Laha oil from his shop. He also admitted receipt of a copy of the report of Public Analyst. He however, contended that he had started his shop some time back and he was selling oil, Gur and Ratab for horses. Laha oil was not used as human food. It was an article for giving to horses and also for massaging them. He added that he had not mixed anything in the oil. He examined two witnesses in defence.
(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge took the view that it was not proved that Laha oil or linseed oil ('Alsi-ka-Tel) was used for human consumption and was edible oil. Hence it could not be said that the accused had contravened the provisions of section 7 of the Act punishable under section 16 (1) of the same Act. He further observed that the accused had informed the Food Inspector at the time of the taking of the samp'.e that the oil in question was not edible oil and for this reason as well the accused could not be said to have committed an offence. Rule 44 (e)prohibited sale of a mixture of two or more edible oils. Since it was not proved Laha oil and linseed oil were edible oils there was no contravention of Rule 44 (e)THE learned Judge, therefore, acquitted Raman Lal, accused. The Food Inspector did not feel satisfied and, therefore, filed this appeal with leave.;