Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The complainant has submitted that on 03.11.2000 at about 5:00 p.m., Food Inspector, Usha Kiran purchased a sample of ' Refined Vegetable Oil ( Palmolien)' a food article, for analysis from Vasudev Jain S/o Aydohya Prasad at M/s Jain Refreshment Corner, P-1/90, Behind Madras Hotel, Connaught Circus , New Delhi-01, where the said food article was found used in preparation of pakoras and vegetables and accused Vasudev Jain was found conducting the business of the said food article at the time of sampling. The sample consisted of approximate 375 ml of Refined Vegetable Oil ( Palmolien) taken from an open tin bearing no label or declaration. The sample was taken under the supervision/direction of Sh. T.S. Mutti , SDM/LHA. The sample was taken after properly mixing it with the help of clean and dry measure. The Food Inspector divided the sample then and there into three equal parts by putting them in three separate clean and dry bottles. Each bottle containing the sample was separately packed, fastened and sealed according to the PFA Act and Rules. Vendor's signatures were obtained on the LHA slip and the wrapper of the sample bottles. Notice in Form VI was given to the accused Vasudev Jain and the price of the sample was given to him. The Panchnama was prepared at the spot. All the documents were prepared by Ms. Usha Kiran, Food Inspector and were signed by the accused Vasudev Jain and were signed by the other witness Shri R.K. Bhaskar, Food Inspector. Before starting the sample proceedings efforts were made to join the pubic witnesses but none came forward. One counter part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst in intact condition and two counter parts were deposited with the LHA in intact condition. The Public Analyst analysed the sample on 21.11.2000 and found that the sample does not conform to standards because Iodine value and Acid value exceeds the prescribed maximum limit of 62 and 0.5 respectively.

Opinion of Director, CFL

14.On 28.08.2001, accused moved an application to get the second counterpart of the sample analysed from the Director, CFL while exercising his right under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act and second counterparts of the sample was examined by the Director, CFL, Kolkata vide Certificate No. G.14-4/2001 (PT.1)-317(K) dated 01.10.01 according to which the sample of Refined Vegetable Oil ( Palmolein ) is adulterated.

15. No doubt, the Certificate of Director, CFL shall supersede the report of the Public Analyst and shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. As per report of the Director, CFL, the sample was opined adulterated only as the acid value was found 0.86 against the minimum prescribed 0.50. The contention of the Ld. Defence counsel was that the acid value of the oil and fats increases with the lapse of time.

17. It is an admitted fact that the sample was lifted from an open tin bearing no label declaration and first counterpart was analysed by the Public Analyst on 21.11.2000 and complaint was filed on 14.8.01 and after filing the complaint as per law, accused moved an application under Section 13 (2) of the PFA Act and the second counterpart was examined by the Director, CFL on 01.10.01 i.e after a period of about eleven months from the date of sampling. Therefore, the increase in the acid value to the extent of .36 above the minimum of .50 appears to be due to auto oxidation, considering the fact that the sample was lifted from an open tin and was analysed by the Director, CFL after a period of eleven months.

B.R at 40 Deg. C - 50 Saponificatin value - 193.55 Iodine value-66.65 Acid value-0.66

21. The second counterpart of the same sample was analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Kolkatta dated 01.10.01 , the result of analysis of second counterpart of the sample commodity as under:-

B.R at 40 Deg. C - 49.5 Saponificatin value - 200.2 Iodine value-56.1 Acid value-0.86 .

22. The variation of analysis in respect of Saponification value, Iodine value and acid value by the reports of two analysts are not within acceptable range of .3% . Complainant has failed to show any reason why the analytic result of two Analysts in respect of the counterpart of the same sample are divergent to such an extent. Thereby relying upon Kashi Nath versus State (supra), I am of the considered view that the sample were not representative due to which different report were given by two experts in respect of counterpart of the same sample.