Premier Vegetable Products Ltd. and Another vs State

S.K. Kaul, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. The Food Inspector is said to have taken a sample of refined palm oil from the shop of the Petitioners on 25-7-1977. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst for report. The Public Analyst gave data about the constituents of refined palm oil. There is nothing in the report to show whether the constituents were injurious to health or whether they fell short of any standard. On receipt of the report a complaint was moved in the Court of the Magistrate, who took cognizance of the complaint. The Petitioner moved a petition in the Court of the Magistrate with a prayer that since they had not contravened any provision of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, inasmuch as no standard for refined palm oil has been prescribed and the Public Analyst also did not give any opinion whether the constituents fell short of standard or whether the constituents were injurious to health, they should not have been prosecuted. That petition was rejected and, therefore, the present petition has been moved in this Court.

In Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, amongst various categories of oils, for which standard is prescribed, there is no standard prescribed for refined palm oil. It is probably on this account that the Public Analyst on analysis of the sample merely mentioned the data relating to the constituents of this oil. He did not mention about the deficiency in any of these constituents or whether any of the constituents was injurious to health. It is, therefore, obvious that in the absence of any standard prescribed by the government for refined palm oil, the sample cannot be said to be deficient by any stretch of imagination, nor can any prosecution be launched on that account. It is high time that the government filled up the gap by inserting a standard for refined palm oil because judicial notice can be taken of the fact that refined palm oil is being sold in the market. So long as no standard for refined palm oil is fixed it would be extremely difficult and impossible to hold in any case whether there is any deficiency in the sample of such an oil or not. The fact remains that so far as this case is concerned, no offence can be said to have been committed by the Petitioners and as such, no prosecution can be launched or entertained against the Petitioners under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

The petition, in this view of the matter, succeeds and the proceedings pending in the Court of Additional Munsif-Magistrate Ist, Faizabad, are quashed.