Corporation of Calcutta vs Cossipore Oil Mill

R.N. Dutt, J.—This is an appeal u/s 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of the Corporation of Calcutta.

On a complaint made by the Corporation of Calcutta the Respondents were prosecuted under, Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Respondent Dwijendra Nath Paxil is said to be the proprietor of the other Respondent M/S Cossipdrc Oil Mill. Charge was framed against Dwijendra Nath Paul. On trial he'' was acquitted. The Corporation has then preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal.

The prosecution case is as follows:

M/s. Cosipore Oil Mill is, situated at 29/54 Cossipore Road, Calcutta.'' Mustard-foil is manufactured there from mustard seeds., On December 28, 1968, one Food Inspector of the Corporation visited the mill and found mustard seeds stored there.. He took samples from the said mustard seeds and on analysis the mustard seeds were found to be adulterated. The defence was that the mill did not sell mustard seeds, but the mustard seeds were stored there for purposes of manufacturing mustard oil. Mustard seeds are purchased from the market and before they are used for manufacturing mustard oil they are cleaned and sieved. When the Food Inspector visited the oil mill, the mustard seeds were in the actual process of being sieved. The mustard seeds were not, therefore, stored there as food for human consumption, and so there was no offence. The learned Magistrate, as I have said, acquitted the accused Dwijendra Nath Paul.

Mr. Basu has taken me through the relevant materials on record. There is evidence to show that mustard seeds, as such, are not sold from the. oil mill or, in other words, the mustard seeds found stored in the oil mill were there for the purpose of being used in the manufacture of mustard oil. Further, there is evidence to show that the mustard seeds from which sample was taken were actually being sieved at the time. True, the sample, which was taken from such mustard seeds, was found to be adulterated. But the real question for consideration is if the mustard seeds stored there were stored as food or, in other words, were meant for human consumption. From the materials on record and from the aforesaid circumstances, there is no doubt that the mustard seeds in question were not, as such, meant for human consumption. They were meant for being manufactured into mustard oil. I had the occasion to consider this point in the Corporation of Calcutta v. Ghasiram Agarwalla Unreported. Cr. App. No. 297 of 1961 decided on June 17, 1963 and I held that an article in order to attract the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act must be an article used as food or drink or, in other words, the article must be meant for human consumption. This decision was followed by T. P. Mukherji J. in Corporation of Calcutta Vs. United Oil Mills and Another, where Mukherji J. also held that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is not attracted to articles which are not meant for sale as food for human consumption. Mr. Basu refers to the decision of the Patna High Court in Patna Municipal Corporation Vs. Dularchand Sao, . But with respect I prefer to follow the decisions of this Court, particularly as the decision in Ghasiram''s case (Supra) is a Division Bench decision. It is not necessary in this case to repeat the reasoning which led us to come to this conclusion in Ghasiram''s case. When mustard seeds are harvested and stored by the cultivators, the mustard seeds are often mixed with impurities and other foreign matters. When such mustard seeds are sold in the market, they retain the impurities and other foreign matters. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act cannot be attracted to mustard seeds so held either by the cultivators or by the traders. But then, when mustard seeds are stored for sale to the consumers as food for human consumption,- then only the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are attracted. The mustard seeds in question in the instant case were not stored, as such, for human consumption, and so, the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are not attracted. There is, therefore, no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The seized mustard seeds be now returned to the Respondent Dwijendra Nath Paul.