Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. We are afraid that this argument is misconceived. The impugned ground stated that the public analyst found the sample of ground nut oils seized from the storage tank of the detenu to have been adulterated with argemone oil which is injurious to public health. According to the ground the very presence of argemone oil is highly injurious to health, since it causes very serious diseases mentioned therein. A copy of the opinion of the public analyst was sent to the detenu and is also placed before as on his behalf as Annexura 1 (a). In that opinion the public analyst, after enumerating the other ingredients, stated that the test for argemone oil by thin layer chromatography method gave a positive result, and consequently he expressed the opinion that the sample contained argemone oil which is injurious to health and is, therefore, adulterated, The public analyst may right or may be wrong. But he is clearly of the opinion that argemone oil by itself is injurious to health. It is true that he did not note the percentage of the argemone oil. Even without it his opinion is that the presence of argemone oil itself is injurious to health which necessarily means that whatever be its percentage, argemone oil is by itself injurious to health. The Commissioner of Police relied on this opinion of the expert and stated in the ground that the oil was injurious to health. It should be remembered that under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Public Analyst is constituted as the statutory authority for doing analysis of food and is appointed by the Central or State Government under Section 8 of the Act. Under Section 13, the Public Analyst is required to send a report in the form which is prescribed to the Food Inspector of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. The form in which the public analyst had sent up his report in this case is in accordance with the form prescribed. This report or opinion of the public analyst is accepted as a statutory basis as to the analysis of any food material.

9. It is also argued that the Public Analyst was not justified in using the thin layer chromatography method, which is also called T. L. O. method to find out whether argemone oil was present. On the other hand, the Indian standard method of sampling and testing for oils and fats is still the Hydro, chloric Acid teat, whose shortened name is H C L test. Indian standard teste are those followed by all Government institutions and H C L test still continues to be adopted by all Governmental and Public Institutions. The Public Analyst followed the T L O test only for the purpose of somehow or other finding some argemone oil content in the sample. This circumstance is sought to be utilised by the learned Counsel for the detenu not only to show that the presence of argemone oil is non-existent but also to de. monstrate that the public analyst and other concerned authorities acted mals fide and were keen on finding something injurious to health in the sample taken out by them. This contention is wholly unwarranted. The register which has been maintained by the public analyst showing all the samples he had been testing has been placed before us by the respondents. That register clearly shows that the public analyst has been adopting only TLC test whenever there was suspicion of adulteration. He followed this method not only in regard to the samples taken out from the detenu's shop, but in examining all samples whenever adulteration was suspected. It is, therefore, unjustifiable to say that to find something in the sample of the detenu, the public analyst went out of his way and introduced some new method. What is equally telling is the circumstances that the other sample of the detenu, viz. 153 was also subjected to the same test by the public analyst and the same showed negative when it was tested for argemone oil. It is also pertinent to note from the scientific papers and opinions filed by the petitioner and the respondents that the minimum limit for detection of argemone oil and other oils through the Hydrochloric Acid test appears to be 0.1%. On the other hand, the TLC method was found to be rapid and specific for argemone oil The sensitivity of that test is as low as 0.005% or even less and the minimum time for development and detection is only 3 to 5 minutes after extraction of alkaloids from the oil. It is thus manifest that the TLC test is more modern and sophisticated than the Hydrochloric Acid test, It is much quicker and it can show the presence of argemone oil even upto 0.005%. There is no wonder then that this later, quicker, and more sensitive test has been adopted by the public analyst. It is also seen from the scientific studies, copies of which have been filed before us, that 0.004% is the permissible limit for the presence of argemone oil in edible oils. Even if the sensitivity capacity of the TLC test is 0.005% and if argemone oil is found to be present in the sample of the detenu, it means that argemone oil is present more than the permissible limit. The public analyst in his affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents says that the sensitivity of HCL test is 6.6% whereas the TLC test is 0-1% and for that reasons the latter is a well recognised, effective and valid one. This would show that the test which the public analyst did through TLC method was capable of showing the presence of argemone oil only upto 0.1%, which is far above the permissible limit. The Medical Officer of the Municipal Corporation in his affidavit submits that argemone oil is injurious to health according to the findings of the experts. We have also referred to the opinion of Modi on this aspect. Therefore, the TLC test followed by the Public Analyst does not exhibitany mala fides on the part of the respondents and on the other hand it demonstrate the presence of argemone oil in the sample in mote than permissible limit.