Dinesh Chandra Pathak vs State of U.P.

K. D. Shahi, J.—This is a revision against the judgement and order dated 1721987 passed by Sri N.K. Mehrotra, the then IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1986 dismissing the appeal of the revisionist filed against the judgment and order dated 751986 passed by Sri S.K. Maurya, the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 648 of 1984 convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default of payment of fine further to under go R.I. for three months''.

The brief facts of the case are that on 26101983 a sample of mustard oil was taken from the shop of the accused revisionist for analysis. The Public Analyst prepared a report on 14121983 and found the sample adulterated because there was mixture of 22 percent Tisi oil. A complaint was Gled in the Court by Food Inspector Sri S.S. Vaclav on 2421984. A copy of report of the public analyst was sent to the accused by the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi on 3031984. The accused appeared in the Court on 2961984and moved an application on 2191985 under Section 13 (2) of the Act for sending the second phial of the sample for reanalysis by the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory was received in the office of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 30111985. The Director, Central Food Laboratory also gave an opinion that the sample of the mustard oil was adullerated.

On trial and appeal the accused revisionist was convicted and sentenced as above, hence this revision.

The instant revision was contested on only one point i.e. sample was taken on 26101983 and the public analyst examined it on 14121983 and found mixture of 22 per cent of Tisi oil but when it was sent to Director, Central Food Laboratory, it was examined on 25111985 and then adulteration of Tisi oil was not found but it was found adulterated in other aspects. Learned counsel for the revisionist referred a ruling reported in 1981 Crl LJ 8 Nebh Raj v. The Stale (Delhi Administration ) and another. In this case sample of ''Dal Biji'' was analysed by Central Food Laboratory three years after it was taken, It was held that although sample was prima facie adulterated but conviction was liable 10 be set aside as possibility of increase in free fatty acid content due to oxidation in storage could not be ruled out. In the instant case the sample has been analysed by the Central Food Laboratory after two years'' and by oxidation the constituent and ingredients changed. There is contradiction in the report of the public analyst as well as Director, Central Food Laboratory, which creates prima facie doubt about the alleged case of adulteration and benefits should go to the accusedrevisionist.

In these circumstances, the revision is fit to be allowed and the conviction and sentence of the revisionist is to be set aside. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The judgments and orders of both the Courts below are hereby set aside. The revisionist is acquitted of the offence of which he faced the trial. He is on bail. He need not surrender before the Court below. His bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged.

Revision allowed.