Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It is further the prosecution's case that the sample was sent to Public Analyst for analysis and as per the report of Public Analyst the sample was not conforming to the standards laid down under item no. A.17.06 of appendix 'B' of PFA Rules 1955 because sample shows presence of argemone oil. Accordingly after obtaining the necessary Sanction / Consent under Section 20 of the Act, the present complaint was filed for violation of provisions of Section 2 (ia) (a) (b) (c) (f) (h) (l) of the PFA Act 1954 which is punishable under Section 16 (1A) of the Act read with Section 7 of the PFA Act.

33. The Ld. Counsel for accused has vehemently argued that solely on account of the variation in the report of Public Analyst and Certificate of Director, CFL, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal as held in Kanshi Nath judgment (supra) 2005(2) FAC 219.

34. In the present case, there is consistent report of Public Analyst and Certificate of Director, CFL regarding the presence of Argemone Oil in the sample commodity. It is important to note that the accused persons are facing prosecution in the present case on account of presence of Argemone Oil in the sample commodity. So, variation of percentage of other constituents like Iodine Value, Saponification Value, Acid Value etc. in the Report of PA and Certificate of Director CFL, looses significance.

Percentage of Argemone Oil

52. It was further argued that in the report of the Director the percentage of argemone oil has not been mentioned hence it cannot be concluded as to what was the exact quantity of the argemone oil detected to make it adulterated. However, I do not agree with the above contentions of Ld. Defence counsel. On reading of Item no. A 17.6 of Appendix B of the PFA Rules it becomes amply clear that no argemone oil could be added to the Mustard Oil . It states that the test for argemone oil should be "negative"". Therefore mere presence of argemone oil whatever may be the traces amounts to adulteration. The percentage is of significance only when the argemone oil is permitted to be added to a certain quantity/standard and it is in excess or less than that prescribed quantity/standard. But where no argemone oil is permitted in Mustard Oil, no question /argument can be raised that the Director did not mention the percentage of argemone oil as the mere presence of argemone oil amounts to adulteration. In Ram Nath Vs. State 1981 (1) FAC, 204 it has been held that omission to specify the percentage of organic or inorganic extraneous matters is immaterial and this omission in the report cannot be regarded as a defect in it. In State of Gujarat Vs. Kutubuddin and ors 1981 (II), 264 it was held that on perusal of section 13 (2B) of the PFA Act it would be thus seen that the certificate has to be issued in a prescribed form and it has to specify only the result of the analysis. 53 Ld. counsel for accused no. 4 has also argued that no reliance can be placed on the Certificate of Director, CFL as it does not even reveal which method was used for analysing the same commodity. The said contention of the Ld. Counsel for defence is not sustainable on account of law propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhian Singh Vs. Municipal Board Saharanpur and Anr. AIR 1970 SC 318. It was observed as follows:­ "7. The only other question canvassed before us is that the report of the analyst could not have afforded a valid basis for founding the conviction as the data on the basis of which the anlalyst had reached his conclusion is not found in the report or otherwise made available to the court. We are unable to accept this contention as well. It is not correct to say that the report does not contain the data on the basis of which the analyst came to his conclusion. The relevant data is given in the report. A report somewhat similar to the one before us was held by this Court to contain sufficient data in Mangaldas's case referred to earlier. The correct view of the law on the subject is as stated in the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Nagar Mahapalika of Kanpur v. Sri Ram, 1963 AII LJ 765 = (AIR 1964 AII 270) wherein it is observed:

54 Ld. Counsel for the accused no. 4 has heavily relied on judgment of Rakesh Kumar Arora Vs. Department of PFA, GNCT of Delhi, Crl. No. 1069 of 2008 decided on 16.12.2014 to contend that the both mycotoxin and Argemon Oil give similar fluorescence under the UV Lamp and unless High Performance Liquid Chromatography is conducted, the two contaminates i.e. Argemon Oil and Mycotoxin could not distinguished. So, it is argued that in absence of HPLC Test which is not conducted in this case, as per the report of CFL, the accused cannot be convicted for the presence of Argemone Oil in the sample commodity. However, on the perusal of judgment of Rakesh Kumar Arora (supra), it is clear that the similar argument in the said case was not found favour with the Court . Moreover, the defence has not produced any documentary / oral evidence in support of this argument canvassed before me.