JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—In the present case the petitioner has been convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Short point which has been called upon for determination by this Court is that if in the laddoos sold by the petitioner, it has been found that they are prepared with palm oil, whether the same constituted offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act or not.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that until and unless, an opinion comes that the laddoos prepared with the palm oil are unsafe for human consumption, no offence is found to be committed.

3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has stated that in the present case, offence has fallen under the provision of section 7 because the offence of misbranding will be punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and it has stated to the Food Inspector that they are prepared by Vanaspati oil and not by palm oil. It is difficult to rely upon the bald assertion of the witnesses in the Court because at the time when the samples were taken then had the accused disclosed that the laddoos are made by Vanaspa