Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Commissioner of Police, therefore, came to the conclusion that by these acts of adulteration and supply of adulterated essential commodity, i. e. ground nut oil, the detenu was depriving the community of the supply and service of a wholesome and unadulterated essential commodity and also creating an artificial scarcity of essential commodity of quality required for the public consumption and thereby indulging in acts prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. Learned Counsel's criticism is that the public analyst found only the presence of argemone oil in the sample. He did not find out how much percentage of that oil was present in the sample. That means that no qualitative test showing the extent of adulteration was made. The detenu will not be able to make a satisfactory representation in the absence of a finding as to the percentage of the presence of argemone oil. According to him, the very presence of argemone oil is not injurious to health. Its presence beyond a certain limit alone may be injurious. If the actual content of argemone oil is not known, the detenu will not be in a position to effectively meet the accusation made against him. From the same position, learned Counsel also spells one the infirmity of non-existence in the ground. If argemone oil is not injurious to health when it is pre. sent in smaller percentage, then one simple allegation that argemone oil is present and, therefore, the groundnut oil that is being sold by the detenu is injurious to health is based on a non-existing apprehension. He invites our attention to the definition of the word 'adulterated' in Section 2 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Only two clauses of that definition are pertinent. Clause (l) there, of says that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if its quality or purity falls below the prescribed standard or its con stituents are present in quantities which remain excess of the prescribed limits of variability. It may be immediately noticed that no prescribed limits of the presence of argemone oil in ground nut oil are prescribed under the Rules of that Act, though in regard to mustard oil it is specifically stated that the test for argemone oil should be negative. Since there are no prescribed limits in regard to the presence of argemone oil in ground nut oil clause (1) is not attracted. Then of all the other clauses we are left with Clause (h) alone, according to which an article shall be deemed to be adulterated if it contains any poisonous or other ingredient which readers it injurious to health. It is argued for the detenu that the very fact that the ground nut oil seized from the detenu contained argemone oil would not be sufficient to bring the detenu within the mischief of Clause (h) so long as it is not established that its presence renders ground nut oil injurious to health, It renders ground nut oil injurious to health only if argemone oil is present beyond permissible limits. When the percentage of the content of argemone oil is not even found out, the allegation against the detenu is not only vague but also non-existing. This in substance is the submission in so far as these tip aspects are concerned.

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.

7. It is also urged that if percentage of the argemone content has been found out, it would have demonstrated whether the contamination of the groundnut oil with argemone oil was a natural one or whether it was the result of deliberate adulteration. Percentage is, therefore, an essential factor which should have been found out and in its absence, the ground becomes vague and non-existent. In this connection reliance is placed on Bhagwan-dass v. State . The State v. Shanti Parkash and Nandu Ram v. State (1962) 2 Ori L J 579 (Punj), In the first of these cases, the learned Judge thought that if the report of the analyst contained some indication of the quantity of saccharine it would have been better, for it was possible for traces of saccharine to remain in a bottle which had not been properly washed before it was refilled again. It will be noticed that the mere presence of saccharine was not found to be dangerous and hence the Court thought that the percentage of its content should have been indicated. Likewise, in the last of the three cases, the Court was dealing with the presence of quantity of formalin in milk. Under Rule 20 of the Act the strength is prescribed and so the Court felt that unless proof is offered, it is not possible for the Court to hold that it was all the same adequate to prevent its disintegration or changes in composition. Similar is the position with regard to the other case cited. We have already pointed out that the rules under the Food Adulteration Act do not say anything about the argemone oil in groundnut oil, while it is totally forbidden in mustard oil. The public analyst is of the opinion that its very presence is injurious to health. Therefore, the question of percentage is totally irrelevant. The decision in re, K. Abdul Azeeze and Delhi Municipal Corpn. v. Satpal are very useful in this connection. There it was held that where foreign matter is prohi-bited. percentage need not be stated. Argemone oil is clearly mentioned with regard to mustard oil because mustard and argemone seeds look very much similar and it is possible to mistake one for the other. By any stretch of imagination it cannot be postulated that argemone seeds can be mistaken for groundnut kernel and unless they are deliberated mixed they cannot be crushed together. We may here usefully refer to a passage in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Eighteenth Edition at page 607; Dealing with argemone seed and plant the learned author stated that:

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.