Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a criminal prosecution under Section 462 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 for selling and keeping for sale adulterated mustard oil. Appellant No. 1, a company, sent a consignment of about 499 maunds of mustard oil from Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh, to itself at Calcutta in tank wagon No. 75612 on December 25, 1954. The wagon was placed at Pathuriaghat siding at Calcutta on January 3, 1955. Dr. Nityananda Bagui, Food Inspector of the Calcutta Corporation, accompanied by police officers, took three samples of mustard oil from the wagon after arranging purchase of 12 ounces for eight annas from appellant No. 2, the company's manager, who was found near the wagon. The samples were sealed; one was given to appellant No. 2, and one sent to the Public Analyst. The analyst initially could not form a positive opinion, but later reported on January 4, 1955 that the oil was adulterated. The tank wagon was seized and sealed; oil was later removed to appellants' godown and the godown lock sealed. On February 4, 1955, the Food Inspector filed a complaint alleging sale and storage for sale of mustard oil adulterated with groundnut oil. During trial, a third sample was sent to the Director of Health Services, Government of West Bengal, and the analyst found it adulterated with groundnut oil. The appellants' own expert report claiming purity was not proved, and a sample sent by the Deputy Commissioner of Police to another analyst was not shown to be from the same tank wagon and only approximated standards, not genuine. The trial court convicted the appellants on January 16, 1956, and the Calcutta High Court affirmed the conviction on July 2, 1957. The Supreme Court considered whether the oil was adulterated, whether the appellants were in possession, and whether the statutory presumption under Section 462(4) that the oil was stored for sale was rebutted. The appellants relied on an arrangement between the U.P. Oil Millers Association and the Deputy Commissioner of Police and a letter requesting sample testing before taking delivery. The Court held that the analytical evidence established adulteration with groundnut oil; that the appellants had taken delivery of the wagon and were in possession; and that the arrangement and letter did not legally restrain sale, did not state what would be done if the oil was impure, and there was no arrangement with the Calcutta Corporation, the sole authority. The Court characterized the arrangement and letter as a device to make detection difficult and upheld the conviction.
Headnote
A) Food Adulteration - Adulteration of Mustard Oil - Finding of fact - Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (W.B. XXXIII of 1951), Section 462 - The Supreme Court considered evidence of public analyst and court witness showing B.R. Index 60.4, Bellier's test positive, saponification value 175.5, iodine value 106.8 and turbidity at 27-28 degree C. It held that mustard oil was adulterated with groundnut oil; report of another analyst that sample approximated standards did not establish genuineness. Held that the finding of adulteration is correct. B) Food Adulteration - Possession and Storage - Presumption under Section 462(4) - Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (W.B. XXXIII of 1951), Section 462(4) - Appellants consigned oil to themselves and manager took delivery from railway before sampling; circumstances established possession and control. Held that appellants were in possession of oil when sample was taken and presumption of storage for sale applied. C) Food Adulteration - Rebuttal of Presumption - Private Arrangement and Letter - Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (W.B. XXXIII of 1951), Section 462(4) - Arrangement between U.P. Oil Millers Association and Deputy Commissioner of Police and letter requesting sample testing before delivery did not legally restrain sale; no arrangement with Calcutta Corporation as sole authority; arrangement and letter were a device to make detection difficult. Held that presumption was not rebutted.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the mustard oil was adulterated with groundnut oil; whether the appellants were in possession of the oil when sample was taken; whether the presumption under Section 462(4) that oil was stored for sale stood rebutted by arrangement and letter.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction under Section 462 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. It held that the mustard oil was adulterated with groundnut oil, the appellants were in possession, and the statutory presumption that the oil was stored for sale was not rebutted; the arrangement and letter were a device to make detection difficult.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 462(4) is rebuttable
- burden on accused to show oil not for sale
- private arrangement with police does not rebut presumption
- Calcutta Corporation sole authority for action
- device to make detection difficult
