T.P.Mukherji, J. - (1.) The Corporation of Calcutta filed this appeal with the special leave of the Court under Section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of the two respondents in a case under Section 16 (i) (a) (i)/7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Section 7 of the Act prohibits manufacture for sale, or storage, or tale or distribution of any adulterated food and Section 16 makes such manufacture, storage, sale and distribution an offence punishable thereunder. Respondent No. 1 is an oil mill with the firm name of Messrs. United Oil Mills Respondent No. 2 was prosecuted as the proprietor thereof. A food inspector of the Calcutta Corporation took sample of Jinjili Oil also known as Til or Sesame Oil from a vat in the mill premises after observing the necessary formalities. On chemical examination, the oil was found to be adulterated in the sense that it deviated from the standard in respect of B. R. reading, saponification value and iodine value and it was further found to contain linseed oil. On receipt of the report of the chemical analyst, the present prosecution launched.
(2.) The defence pertaining to the present proceeding was that the oil mill firm was a partnership firm and that respondent No. 2 could not be prosecuted for his liability in the matter in the absence of necessary evidence under Section 17 of the Act which was wanting in the case. The other defence that the oil being an article of food, storcle of food, the same being meant for use end being used for industrial purposes.
(3.) The learned magistrate found that the food inspector took sample of oil for human consumption, that is, as an article of food for human consumption. A further finding was that accused No. 2 in the case was not liable for any offence that might have been committed, accused No. 1 being a partnership firm and the necessary evidence under Section 17 of the P. F. A. Act being wanting. The third relevant finding of the learned magistrate was that the defence contention that the oil was meant for industrial purposes might reasonably be true. These findings of the learned magistrate led to the order of acquittal the propriety whereof is challenged in this appeal.;