IMPORTANT POINT
Considerable variations in both test reports, samples sent to PA and CFL could not be said to be truly representative of food article purchased.

ORDER

S. Muralidhar, J.—This is a petition seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 5th March 2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CC No. 81 of 2004, acquitting the Respondent of the offence under Section 2(ia), (a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (‘PFA Act’) and Clause 24 of Rule 49 of the PFA Rules, punishable under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act.

2. The Food Inspector purchased 750 grams of mustard oil from the Respondent on 13th April 2004 at about 2 pm. One sample when sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated since it did not conform to the standard. The saponification and iodine value were found to have exceeded the prescribed maximum limit of 177 and 112 respectively and B.T.T. was less than the minimum limit of 23 deg. C. After the complaint was filed, at the instance of the Respondent, another sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory (CFL). Contrary to what had been found by the PA, the CFL opined that the sample conformed to the standard in respect of the three parameters, i.e., saponification value, iodine value and the B.T.T. Test. However, as regards the B.R. reading, while it was found to be within the permissible limit by the PA, the CFL found to the contrary.

3. In view of the considerable variations in both the test reports, the learned ACMM was justified in granting the benefit of doubt to the Respondent. Indeed, the samples sent to the PA and the CFL could not be said to be truly representative of the food article purchased.

4. No grounds have been made out for grant .of leave to appeal. Consequently, the leave petition is dismissed. The trial Court record be returned forthwith. Petition dismissed

**********