JUDGMENT

ORDER:— Special leave granted.

2. We have heard counsel on both sides. The appellant and two others had entered into a partnership for starting business. On the date of the incident the appellant alone was at the shop. There was a half used oil tin lying in the shop which was still at the furniture making stage. The Food Inspector insisted on purchasing oil from that tin and the present appellant gave him 375 gms. which was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The report of the Public Analyst was to the effect that it was adulterated oil. The copy of the report of the Public Analyst which ought to have been given to the appellantimmediately within the meaning of R. 9A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was actually sent long after it was received. That apart, the evidence of the Panch witness discloses as under:

"It is true that the accused had not started their business in the same shop. It is true fixing of furniture in the shop was goinr. The shop was coming up newly. I was called in the shop and at the instance of Patil I signed some papers. During my stay in the shop there was no transaction of sale of any article."

It is evident from this statemen