The presumption of storage for sale under S. 462(4) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, is rebuttable, but the arrangement between the U.P. Oil Millers Association and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Enforcement Branch, and the letter sent by the appellants to the Secretary of the Association did not rebut the presumption in this case.

Judgment

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Calcutta High Court affirming the conviction of the appellants Messrs. Madan Mohan Damma Mal Ltd., and Om Prokash Manglik, its Manager, under S. 462 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (West Bengal Act XXXIII of 1951), hereinafter called the Act.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are that Messrs. Madan Mohan Damma Mal Ltd., (hereinafter called appellant No. 1), sent a consignment of mustard oil, about 499 maunds in weight, from Firozabad, the place of manufacture, to itsen, at Calcutta, on December 25, 1954, in tank wagon No. 75612. This wagon was placed at the Pathuriaghat siding at Calcutta at about 8-45 a. m., on January 3, 1951. Dr. Nityananda Bagui, Food Inspector of the Calcutta Corporation, accompanied by certain police officers, went to that siding and took three samples of mustard oil contained in this wagon, after arranging with Om Prokash Manglik, appellant No. 2, who was found near the wagon, the purchase of 12 ounces of oil for annas eight. He took the sample of oil in three phials. They were properly sealed. One of them was given to appellant No. 2. The other two were kept by Dr. Bagui. He sent one of them to the Public Analyst for examination, the same day. Ashit Ranjan Sen, the Public Analyst, examined the oil contained in that phial on January 3, 1955, but could not come to any positive opinion about its purity. Dr. Bagui, however, seized the tank wagon that evening, sealed it with the Corporation s seal and left it in the custody of appellant No. 2. The oil in the tank was allowed to be removed to the godown of the appellants on January 6, 1955. The lock of the godown was then sealed with the seal of the Corporation. Mr. Sen reported on January 4, 1955, that the oil was adulterated. He sent a detailed report about the result of the examination on January 24, 1955. On receipt of the report about the mustard oil being adulterated, Dr. Bagui filed a complaint against the appellants on February 4, 1955, with respect to their selling and keeping for sale mustard oil, a sample of which was found on analysis to be mustard oil which was adulterated with groundnut oil.

3. During the course of the trial, the trial Court, on an application on behalf of the appellants, ordered the despatch of the third sample phial of the oil in the custody of the Corporation s Health Officer, to the Director of Health Services, Government of West Bengal, for analysis and report. This sample was analysed by Dulal Chandra Dey, Court Witness No. 1, and found to be adulterated with groundnut oil. The report of the Analyst was, however, sent to the Court under the signature of Dr. S. K. Chatterjee, D. W. 2, Deputy Director of Health Services, Government of West Bengal.

4. The appellants appear to have sent the sample of oil in their possession to Om Prakash, Oil Expert to the U. P. Government who reported on July 27, 1955, that the sample conforms to Agmark Specification for Mustard Oil and is considered to be free from adulterants such as sesame, groundnut and linseed oil . This report, however, has not been proved.

5. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Enforcement Branch, Calcutta, sent a sample of mustard oil on January 10, 1955, to the Public Analyst, Food and Water, West Bengal Public Health Laboratory. Sri S. N. Mitra, D. W.7, examined this sample and reported, on the basis of its saponification value to be 173.3, and iodine value to be 105, that the sample approximated to the standards of genuine mustard oil. This report does not establish that the sample was of pure mustard oil. Sri Mitra s reply to the query from the Deputy Commissioner of Police for clarification, makes this very clear. It is :

"But, unless conclusive evidence of the presence of a foreign oil corroborated in some instances by the figures of the usual oil constants, is obtained, the sample is not and cannot be declared adulterated. In the present case the sample of mustard oil has