T.P.MUKHERJI, J. - (1.) THIS Rule is directed against the conviction of the petitioners under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one year passed on them thereunder. The subject -matter of the prosecution was mustard oil which on chemical analysis was found to be adulterated being mixed with linseed oil.
(2.) MR . Talukdar appearing in support of the Rule takes amongst others two major objections to the finding of the Courts below and these are, first, that there is nothing on record to connect the report of the chemical analyst with the sample of oil that was seized from the shop of the petitioner and secondly that all the prescribed tests not having been undertaken in this case, the analysis that was done was not in accordance with the requirements of the law and the analyst not having been examined in the case, the Courts below fell into an error in basing the conviction on that report of the analyst in this case.
(3.) SO far as the first contention is concerned, there is indeed no evidence to connect the report of the chemical analysis, Ext. 3, in the case, with the sample of mustard oil that was taken by the Food Inspector P. W. 1. There is nothing in the evidence of P. W. 1 which may connect Ext. 3 with the sample in question. This contention of Mr. Talukdar must be given effect to. Coming to the second contention that is raised, Mr. Choudhury appearing for the State argues that although all the prescribed tests might not have been done in this case, we have it from the report of the analysts Ext. 3 itself that the sample taken contains linseed oil and if that be the position the same would be adulterated in accordance with the definition of the term 'Adulterated as given in Section 2(i) (b) or (c). With respect to the failure of the chemical analyst to undertake all the tests, the argument advanced on behalf of the Slate is that even if we take it that those two tests which were omitted would yield a result favourable to the accused, even then there would be no answer to the result of the tests as it would stand, which would indicate that the sample did not conform to the prescribed standard in that regard.;