Piyushkumar Tritkumar Shah vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 3 December, 1998
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehementally argued on the basis of Division Bench pronouncement of this Court in Kishore Amratlal Patel v. Rajiv Takru reported in 1987 (2) GLR 1031 : 1988 Cri LJ 826 that since the subjective satisfaction of the detaining Authority was also influenced by the activity of the petitioner in adulterating the ground-nut oil with other oil of cheap price it vitiated the subjective satisfaction which has rendered the .detention order illegal so also the continued detention of the petitioner. After going through the entire ruling of the Division Bench aforesaid I am unable to agree with the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In this case there were as many as 13 grounds on which the detention order was passed. Ground No. 12 was a specific ground regarding adulteration of ground-nut oil, On ground No. 12 it was found that on 16-2-1986 when two samples were taken by the Food Inspector, Rajkot from the stock of Kitchen Queen brand groundnut oil manufactured in the detenu's mill it was found that the goundnut oil manufactured by the detenu was not up to the standard required by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and that showed that the detenu was indulging in manufacturing adulterated groundnut oil in his mill. This is distinguishing feature in the case before me. It was never the allegation of the Inspecting Staffer of the detaining Authority that the petitioner was actually adulterating groundnut oil. On the other hand adulteration was mentioned in the grounds of detention, on the basis of admission made by the petitioner in the statement given before the Inspecting team. Further, in this case neither samples were taken from the premises of the petitioner nor it was analysed by the public analyst nor was any report of the public analyst that the sample was adulterated and was not up to the standard required by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.