P.N.Bakshi - (1.) THE applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- by the trial court. In default of payment of fine, lie is to undergo further three months' R. I. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Nainital. Hence this revision.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also -perused the impugned orders and the record of the case. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that the Food Inspector Sri H. C. Joshi visited the shop of the applicant Ramesh Chandra situate in Sadar Bazar Haldwani where articles of food were being sold. He found that the applicant had stored and exposed for sale Rapeseed oil in open container and in sealed tins bearing lable of Bahar Brand Rapeseed oil of M/s Rara Mal Cow Mai Oil Mill, Ganga Nagar, Bare-illy. He suspected the rapeseed oil to be adulterated and mis-branded. The Food Inspector gave a notice (Ex.Ka 1) to the accused and purchased 3.75 Grams of rapeseed oil from the open container on payment of 2.60 paise as its price. He divided the same in three parts and corked and sealed the phials. The food inspector also gave another notice Ex. Ka 3 to the accused and purchased a sample from a sealed tin of rapeseed oil on payment of price. This was also duly sealed in accordance with law. One sample phial of each of the two sample taken by the Food Inspector was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analysis for both the samples disclosed that it was adulterated, judged from the standard of rapeseed oil as laid down in Appendix B item no. A. 17. 06. The sample conformed to the standard of imported rapeseed oil. On receipt off both these reports, they, along with the relevant papers connected therewith were sent for sanction to the Chief Medical Officer, Nainital. The sanction was received by the Food Inspector on 13th April, 1978. Thereafter the complaint was filed. A copy of each of the reports of the Public Analyst was sen to the accused on 13-4-1978 under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act along with an intimation as required thereunder informing him that if he so desired he could make an application in the court of the II Addl. Munsif-Magistrate, Haldwani for having the sample phial in the possession of the Local Health Authority sent for analysis by the Central Food Laboratory within 10 days On these allegations, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the rapeseed oil should have been judged from the standard of imported rapeseed oil and not from the standard of rapeseed oil laid down in Appendix 'B' item no. A" 17.06. He argues that rapeseed oil sen. was the same thing as the imported rapeseed oil and that rape seed was not. grown in our country. On a study of this question as to whether rapeseed was grown in India or not, I have had the advantage of perusing a commentary on Plants Consumed by Man by B. Brouk of the Polytechnic of South Bank London, 1975 Edition wherein it has been very clearly -mentioned that rapeseed is produced mainly in China, India, Japan, Russia, Sweeden and France. Thus, I have no reason to doubt that rapeseed sis produced in India. In this connection, I have also perused the entire cross-examination off the witnesses and I do not find any challenge being thrown on the ground that the rapeseed was not produced in India. For these reasons, I am unable to agree with the submission made by the applicants counsel that the standard for judging the sample of rapeseed adopted by the Public Analyst was erroneous and it should have been judged only from the standard of imported rapeseed oil. The various tests that have been conducted by the Public Analyst under item no. A-17-06 of Appendix 'B' have been clearly laid down in both the reports submitted by him. On a comparison thereof, there can be no doubt that the sample in question do not conform to the standard laid down. As such, I am of the opinion that the sample was clearly adulterated and the guilt of the accused was fully established and rightly upheld by the courts below.
(3.) THE next point argued by the applicant's counsel is that there has been no compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. No such ground of revision has been taken in this court. From the statement of Pooran Chandra Sharma (P. W. 2) clerk of the Chief Medical Officer's office supported by the statement of H. C. Joshi, Food Inspector (P. W. 1), it is fully established that the report as well as the intimation under Section 13 (2) of the P. F. Act was sent to the accused on 13th April, 1978, after the prosecution has been launched. It is also clear from the intimation Ex. Ka 11 that all the details which are required under Section 13 (2) including the name of the court and the right of the accused to apply within 10 days of the receipt of the report to the Local Health Authority for sending the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, if the accused so desires, have been mentioned therein. A copy of each of the two reports were sent along with this intimation on 13th April, 1978. Counsel for the applicant has tried to argue that the case was registered on 16th April, 78 and therefore, there has been non-compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This argument does not appeal to me at all. If there was some delay by the clerk concerned in the office in registering the case, it does not mean that the compliant was not filed on 13th Aprils 1978. Moreover no such argument was raised, no such ground of revision was taken and no such challenge on facts was thrown to the witnesses, who have been produced to prove compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In my opinion there has been full compliance of this rule and intimation was duly sent along with the report to the accused after the institution of the prosecution. Lastly the applicant's counsel has urged that the Sanctioning Authority did not apply his mind before granting sanction. This argument again is misconceived. The statements of the prosecution witnesses on the record referred to above, established satisfactorily that all the relevant papers including the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the Chief Medical Officer Nainital for obtaining the sanction. Even a copy of the report which was proposed to be filed and which had been drafted on the 28th March, 78 was sent along with the relevant papers. From a perusal of the order of sanction (Ex. Ka 10) I find that it is very clearly mentioned therein that the Chief Madical Officer has gone through the report of the Public Analyst dated 28th March, 78 and the connected papers and after due and full consideration, he was of the opinion that Sri Ramesh Chandra should be prosecuted for the offence u/S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He, therefore, accorded sanction for prosecution. In these circumstances, there is no merit in this contention.;