Municipal Committee, Amritsar vs Mehar Singh

M.L. Verma, J.—This appeal has been directed by the Municipal Committee, Amritsar, against the acquittal granted to the respondent by the learned Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, of the charge u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act).

In short, the prosecution case is that the respondent has been running a shop of confectionery near bus stand outside Hall Gate at Amritsar. He had been preparing sweetmeats with Vanaspati. On 18th September, 1967, at about 11 A.M. Krishan Kumar, Food Inspector, Municipal Committee, Amritsar, went to the shop of of the respondent. He was present there. Harbhajan Singh and Upkar Singh were also present at the said shop. Vanaspati was lying in a tin in the said shop. Disclosing his identity, Krishan Kumar purchased 1500 grams out of the said Vanaspati, from the respondent, on payment of Rs. 6.75 P. as its price for analysis. The said sample of Vanaspati was divided into three equal parts which were poured into three clean and dry bottles. The said bottles were stoppered, labelled and sealed. One of the said bottles was given to the respondent. The second bottle was kept by Krishan Kumar, in his office, and the third bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Amritsar, who on due analysis, declared the said sample of Vanaspati as adulterated because it did not contain sesame (til) oil. Therefore, the Municipal Committee, Amritsar, made complaint u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act against the respondent. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent of the charge framed against him for having in his possession for sale Vanaspati which was adulterated. Dissatisfied with the said result, the Municipal Committee, Amritsar, preferred this appeal.

Since the report, made by the Public Analyst, was ambiguous, we summoned the Public Analyst and examined him u/s 428, Criminal Procedure Code. The evidence was read out to us and we heard the arguments and also examined the record.

The facts, that the respondent had been running confectionery shop where he prepared sweatmeats with Vanaspati and that on 18th September, 1967 Krishan Kumar had taken 1500 grams out of Vanaspati, lying in a tin at the aforesaid shop, from the respondent for analysis, are amply borne out by the evidence present on the record and are not disputed. The respondent pleaded that the Vanaspati, out of which sample had been taken by Krishan Kumar, was not kept at the shop for sale but had been purchased by him for use at his house at the time of akhand path. The said plea was rejected by the learned Magistrate and I think for good reasons. He came to the conclusion that the Vanaspati, out of which sample had been taken, was kept by the respondent in his shop for the purpose of preparing sweatmeats with it. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, especially that the respondent had been preparing sweatmeats with Vanaspati at his confectionery shop, and the Vanaspati from which the sample had been taken was lying in a tin the surface of which had been opened from three sides and had been lifted, I think that the said conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate was correct. The principal question, involved in the case, which requires determination is as to whether, on the evidence present on the record, it can be held, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Vanaspati possessed by the respondent, out of which sample had been taken, was adulterated. According to rule A. 19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, ''Vanaspati" means-

Any refined edible vegetable oil or oils, subjected to a process of hydrogenation in any form. It shall be prepared by hydrogenation from groundnut oil, cotton seed oil and sesame oil or mixtures thereof or any other harmless vegetable oils allowed by the Government for the purpose. It shall conform to the standards specified below:

(i) It shall not contain any harmful colouring, flavouring or any other matter deleterious to health.

(ii) No colour shall be added to hydrogenated vegetable oil unless go authorised by Government, but in no event any colour resembling the colour of ghee shall be added.

(iii) If any flavour is used, it shall be distinct from that of ghee, in accordance with a list of permissible flavours and in such quantities as may be prescribed by Government:

Provided that diacetyl to the extent of not more than 4.0 p.m. may be added to Vanaspati exclusively meant for consumption by the Armed Forces.

(iv) It shall not have moisture exceeding 0.25 per cent.

(v) The melting point as determined by the capillary slip method shall be from 31�C to 37�C both inclusive.

(vi) The Butyro-refractometer reading at 40�C, shall not be less than 48.

(vii) It shall not have unsaponifiable matter exceeding 1.25 per cent.

(viii) It shall not have free fatty acids (calculated as Oleic acid) exceeding 0.25 per cent.

(ix) The product on melting shall be clear in appearance and shall be free from staleness or rancidity, and pleasant to taste and smell.

(x) It shall contain raw or refined sesame (til) oil not less than 5 per cent, by weight, but sufficient so that when the Vanaspati is mixed with refined groundnut oil in the proportion of 20 : 80, the red colour produced by the Baudouin test shall not be lighter than 2.0 Red units in a 1 cm. on a lovibond scale.

(xi) It shall contain not less than 25 I.U. of synthetic Vitamin ''A'' per gram.

(xii) No anti-oxidant, synergist, emulsifier or any other such substance shall be added to it except with the prior sanction of the Government.

Report Exhibit P.F. of the Public Analyst read with his statement recorded on 24th April 1972, points out that he (Public Analyst) carried out four tests and found that sample of the Vanaspati satisfied three out of the aforesaid four tests. In other words, it was found to fulfil the standards mentioned at (v), (vi) and (viii), stated under rule A. 19 reproduced above. He (Public Analyst), however, found that the sample of Vanaspati did not fulfil the standard laid in (x) of rule A-19, because the analysis, carried out by him, revealed that it did not contain any sesame (til) oil. According to the said standard, prescribed in (x) of rule A. 19, the sample of Vanaspati should have contained raw or refined sesame (til) oil not less than 5 per cent by weight. The procedure or method by which sesame (til) oil can be detected in the Vanaspati is called Baudouin test. The said test means that, when sesame oil is shaken with concentrated hydrochloric acid and then made to react with a solution of furfural in alcohol, it gives red colour (vide page 55 of ''The Vanaspati Industry'' by Gopal S. Harttiangdi, First Edition 1958. Shri Ravinder Nath Beri, Public Analyst admits, in his statement recorded on 24th April, 1972, that there are certain varieties of sesame til oil imported from the Mediterranean region when added to the Vanaspati in the ratio, as stated in (x) of rule A. 19, it would not, when the Vanaspati is subjected to Baudouin test, give red colour. There is nothing on the record to show that no sesame (til) oil, imported from the Mediterranean region is available in India. Therefore, the possibility, as contended by the Learned Counsel for the respondent, that the Vanaspati possessed by the respondent, could contain sesame (til) oil imported from the Mediterranean region, to the extent of 5 per cent or more by weight and, therefore, it did not respond to the Baudouin test, cannot be excluded. In that view of the matter, the Vanaspati, possessed by the respondent, from which the sample had been taken cannot be declared, with certainty, to be adulterated. Since the sesame (til) oil imported from the Mediterranean region does not respond to the Baudouin test, the same (Baudouin test) cannot be said to be sure test for finding that the Vanaspati does not contain sesame (til) oil to the extent of 5 per cent, by weight.

Further, adulterated article of food is defined in clause (i) of section 2 of the Act. Since the prosecution case is that the Vanaspati in question was adulterated as it did not contain sesame (til) oil, the postible sub-clause of clause (i) of section 2 of the Act, which may be applicable, is ''(j) or (1) which read as under:-

(i) ''Adulterated'' - an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated-

* * *

(j) if any colouring matter other than that prescribed in respect thereof and in amounts not within the prescribed limits of variability is present in the article;

* * *

(1) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities which are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability;

* * *

The main purpose of adding sesame (til) oil to Vanaspati, as admitted by Shri Ravinder Nath Beri, Public Analyst, in his statement recorded on 24th April 1972, is to detect adulteration of pure ghee with Vanaspati. He further admits in his aforesaid statement that the absence of sesame (til) oil in the Vanaspati does not affect its nutritive value. Therefore, it cannot be said that any colouring matter, other than the one prescribed in respect thereof, had been added to the Vanaspati in question or that its quality or purity had fallen below the prescribed standard. I, therefore, find force-in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the respondent that, in the circumstances of the case and on the material present ou the record, it cannot be held, much less safely, that the Vanaspati, possessed by the respondent, was adulterated. In that view of the matter, the acquittal of the respondent cannot be interfered with and, therefore, the appeal must fail.

Consequently, I, upholding the acquittal of the respondent, dismiss this appeal.

P.S. Pattar, J.

I agree.