Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: argemone in Food Inspector vs . Nathu Ram on 1 February, 2011Matching Fragments
11. The accused on being served, appeared and exercised the Right U/s 13 (2) of the Act of 1954 and consequent thereto, the second counterpart of the sample of mustard oil was sent & got analysed and the FI Vs. Nathu Ram ::17::
Director CFL gave the Report dated 10.11.98. The said Report also reveals that the mustard oil was found adulterated. It specifically contains that the Argemone Oil was found present in the mustard oil in question and shows the presence thereof as "strongly positive". The said Report of the Director CFL is not only 'per se' admissible but also the final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. Hence, the accused [by virtue of Provision U/s 13 (5) (Proviso Clause) of the Act of 1954, r/w S. 4 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872] cannot agitate rather cannot be allowed to dispute the veracity of the Report of the CFL in its contents and outcome. The Report of the Director CFL is thus the conclusive proof of the fact that the mustard oil in question was found adulterated with Argemone Oil and that its presence was found to be strongly positive.
16. Now stepping ahead, the crux of the entire defence lies in stressing upon that in both the Reports (PA & CFL Report), it has nowhere been reflected that the Argemone Oil was injurious to health, and that the %age of Argemone Oil detected in the sample commodity i.e. mustard oil was not reflected in these Reports. Another aspect of defence is that the presence of Argemone Oil was also possible due to contamination at the harvesting stage. It is further agitated that the Argemone Oil is costlier than the mustard oil.
whereas Argemone somewhere in peak Summer. Hence there cannot be any possibility of any sort of unintentional adulteration. Even if it is assumed for a moment that any such adulteration may have taken place at the farmer level itself, it is of no avail for the defence purpose as the accused was legally bound to ensure that whatever he was selling (as food articles) was required to be 'adulteration-free' within the meaning of the Act. It is also pertinent to mention herein that the mustard seeds are mainly of two types i.e. light variety of mustard seeds called Brassica compestris and the dark variety i.e. Brassica Nigra. The light variety can easily be differentiated from Argemone seeds by simple visual inspection whereas, the dark variety can be distinguished by placing the seeds in normal saline in which eventuality mustard seeds will sink whereas, the Argemone seeds will float as the Argemone seeds are the 'false' seeds.
20. Next point of defence is that the Argemone Oil was costlier than the mustard oil. In the suggestion given to PW-2 LHA Sh. S.K. Nanda, the cost of Argemone Oil is shown to the tune of Rs. 1200/- per kg. However, the defence has not substantiated the same in any manner. This sort of suggestion becomes meaningless, the same being nowhere near the common sense. Had that been the case, the instances would have been of adulteration / contamination of Argemone Oil with (the adulterant like) mustard oil or any other Oil of the like nature. Further, in that eventuality the farmers would have started growing the Argemone plants and would have discontinued cultivating the mustard.