Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

fore, there is not much difference. In respect of Iodine value the rule says that it varies between 85 to 99 while the report of the Central Laboratory shows that it is 100.3. Thus there is difference of 1.3 in Iodine value. The test of unsaponificable matter has not been carried out. As regards free fatty acid as oleic acid, prescribed limit is not more than 1.00 per cent. We have here only 9.2 per cent. The Bellier test varies between 39 C to 41 C while the report shows that there is difference because Bellier test shown here is 37.90, It will thus be seen that the examination or the data shows that in respect of 9, the report shows variations and it does not agree with the prescribed variations laid down under the rules. It was pointed out that there was only a difference of 1.3 of Iodine value and it may be a marginal error. But it appears from the report that at least the variations pointed out in the rule in respect of three examinations are different and they do not even comply other maximum or minimum rule, because in the case of Bellier test the minimum is 39 C to 41 C while in the report it is shown to be 37.90. Similarly, in respect of Butyro-refractometer reading at 40 C it is seen that the minimum and maximum prescribed is 54.0 to 57.1 while we have it here as 58.0.

8. The question for consideration would be, as will be evident from the submissions which I shall reproduce as urged by Shri Manohar on behalf of the respondent, whether these differences are in the nature of marginal error committed by the expert and whether on such a report it can be held by the Court, who has to finally decide, whether the article of food of which sample was collected, was adulterated.

9. In that respect before I state the submissions of Shri Manohar and discuss them, it is necessary to refer to Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Section 13 Sub-clause (1) deals with, report of the Public Analyst. The public analyst shall deliver, in such a form as may be prescribed, a report "to the Food Inspector of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. Sub-clause (2) deals with the right of accused or the complainant on payment of prescribed fee to make an application to the Court for sending the part of the sample mentioned in Sub-clause (i) or Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for a certificate: and on receipt of the application the Court shall first ascertain that the seal or fastening as provided in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 in intact and may then despatch the part of the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory who shall thereupon send a certificate to the court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the sample, specifying the result of his analysis. Sub-clause (5) of this section along with its proviso is necessary to be reproduced :

It, therefore, follows that the certificate signed by the Public Analyst may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein unless it has been superseded under Sub-section (3). It is also laid down that a certificate signed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. In the instant case both the reports show that the article of food a sample of which they have examined, viz. the sample of ground-nut oil was adulterated.

10. However, it was contended before me by Shri Manohar. the learned Advocate for the respondents, relying upon certain authorities which I shall refer, that the data supplied by both Public Analyst as well as Director, especially in respect of iodine value differs to such a large extent that it is possible to hold that there may be a marginal error committed by the experts and under such circumstances the report relied upon cannot be read to hold that the sample examined was adulterated. He first drew my attention to a case reported in B. S. Samant v. The State of Maharashtra, . It was a case in respect of a sale, of buffalo's unboiled milk in which, according to the prosecution, there was extraneous water to the extent of 17.7 per cent. It appears that sample bottle was examined both by Public Analyst is well as Director of Central Food Laboratory and in view of the difference in respect of added water in the reports the Court felt doulbt with regard to the contents of two bottles which were analysed. The relevant observation relied upon by Shri Manohar is on page 801 (of Bom LR) :at pp. 369-370 of AIR) as under:

A variation of 0.3 per cent in the milk solids not-fat in the present case has, therefore, to be treated a border-line variation and as was held in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Om Prakash (1970 Cri LJ 1047) (Delhi) the benefit of the doubt arising from the variation should go to the accused.

It will thus be seen that the facts of the case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. First of all this was a case in respect of adulteration of milk. Secondly, evidence before the Kerala High Court showed that such marginal variations had occurred in examination of milk and they ere called margin of .permissible errors as tolerance. No such material is adduced in this case to show that in the examination of the oil there is such marginal error committed by the experts which can be treated as marginal error of toleranee. Reliance was only placed before me on the report of the Public Analyst and the report of the Director of Central Laboratory, Calcutta to show that these two experts have arrived at different percentage of Iodine value in the examination of the ground-nut oil samples. One came to the conclusion that it was 113.8 per cent while the other came to the conclusion that Iodine value was 100.3 per cent. It was, therefore, urged that it is quite possible that the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, also may have committed a mistake of 1.3 per cent, and may have arrived at a wrong conclusion and such marginal error, if occurred in the report of an expert, then the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. I am unaible to agree with this submission. It is true that so far as the data of Iodine value is concerned, it is shown in the Public Analyst's report as 113.8 while in the Director's of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, report it is shown as 100.3. But it will have to be remembered that other sample was examined on 18th of October 1972 while this sample was examined sometime after 9th of May 1973 and before 29th of May 1973. When the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory is produced in a case then under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act it has to be taken into account and the Act further laid down that it is final and conclusive. Particular data has been given in the report of the Central Laboratory. Calcutta in respect of examination of the sample of groundnut oil. There is no evidence before me that this data arrived at by the Central Laboratory is in any way wrong or it does not conform to the examination which has to be undertaken for examining the sample to find out whether it is pure or adulterated nor it has been pointed out from any evidence adduced in the case in the shape of treatises that such & marginal error of 1.3 per cent can take place in respect of Iodine value as tolerance error by an expert. I have also shown in the earlier part of my judgment that the sample which has been examined may the Director of Central Food Laboratory does not conform in respect of three examinations which I have already stated. Rules have laid down both maximum and minimum percentage to be found in the examination of ground-nut oil to ascertain whether it is a pure ground-nut oil or an adulterated ground-nut oil and in that light it is seen that this data given by the Director of Central Food Laboratory shows that detailed examination of the sample has been made. The conclusion arrived at by the Director, that sample of ground-nut oil does not conform to the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and is, therefore, adulterated, is supported by the detailed examination carried out by the Laboratory. I am, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned Magistrate was in error in holding that such marginal errors can take place in examining sample by an expert, There was no material adduced before the Magistrate to arrive at this conclusion. It appears to be merely his conjecture. I have already given the definition which has been relied upon in the complaint to submit that the sample of the ground-nut oil is adulterated. The report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory does show that the sample of ground-nut oil is adulterated. The report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample is adulterated under Section 2 Clause (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the complainant relies for alleging the sample as adulterated on this definition as stated in Section 2, Sub-clause (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. I, therefore, feel no hesitation in relying upon this report to hold that the sample taken by the Food Inspector from the shop was adulterated ground-nut oil.