Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The report of the Public Analyst (Ex. 26) dated 18th of October, 1972 showed Butyro refractometer 40 C. 57.8. Saponification value 188.0, Iodine value 113.8, Unsaponificable matter 90%, F.F.A. as oleic acid 67%, Bellier's test 37 degree centigrade, test for argemone oil, mineral oil and castor oil negatived. It does not show that any test for cotton seed oil was made. However, Shri Manohar drew my attention to the earlier part of the report that the Public Analyst stated that the sample is clear, free from rancidity, suspended or other foreign matter, separated water, added colouring or flavouring substances or mineral oil. Accused No. 3 admitted his presence 'but 4 denied to have committed any offence. Accused No. 1 admitted that the licence stood in his name and he looks after the entire day-to-day business of the firm. However, accused Nos. 2 and 4 stated that they were not looking to the business and they were partners only for the purpose of income-tax, meaning thereby that they were only sharing the profit and loss but were not in the management of the business. The learned Magistrate held that the document of partnership which was produced, was inadmissible in evidence. It was not established 'by the prosecution that all the four accused were partners and were dealing in the business of the partnership. However, in his opinion, accused No. 3 who was present and who Rave the sample, was only present in the shop and it was he who sold the sample to the Food Inspector. The learned Magistrate further accepted the evidence of the prosecution that the Food Inspector has followed proper procedure in taking the sample, dividing it into three bottles and then sending it for examination of Public Analyst. However, reading the report of the Director of Central Laboratory, the learned Magistrate held "that there was only a difference of 1.3 in Iodine value. From that it cannot be said that the oil was adulterated one because there was possibility of experts committing errors in calculation, The learned Magistrate further observed that if there would have been much difference than 1.3 in Iodine value, then it could be said that it was not error arising in calculation. But as the difference was negligible, he held that it is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that accused No. 2 sold adulterated edible ground-nut oil. In that -view he gave benefit of doubt and acquitted all the accused. Feeling aggrieved the State has filed this appeal.

This definition, therefore, clearly shows that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if the quality of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents in the sample are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability. We have, therefore, to find out what are the tests laid down under the rules to find out whether edible ground-nut oil is pure or adulterated. Rule A-17.03 relates to ground-nut oil (moongh-phalika-tel). It means the oil expressed from clean sound ground-nut (Arachis hypogoes). It shall be clear, free from rancidity, suspended or other foreign matter, separated water, added colouring or flavouring substances, or mineral oil. It shall conform to the following standards: