( 1 ) THE petitioner who is an original accused has challenged the conviction order passed against him under Sec. 16 (l) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (act for short hereinafter) and the sentence of simple imprisonment of three months and fine of Rs. 500. 00 or in default further simple imprisonment for 30 days passed by the learned Metropolitan magistrate, Ahmedabad in Summary Criminal Case, No. 92 of 1980. and confirmed by the City Sessions Judge, at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1982.

( 2 ) THE resume of the material and relevant facts leading to the rise of the present Revision may, shortly, be stated at this stage.

( 3 ) THE present petitioner who is original accused was running a shop in Raikhad locality, at Ahmedabad, and was, also, dealing with groundnut oil. The petitioner was doing business in the name of kailas Kirana Store. The Food Inspector of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, opponent No. 2, original complainant, inspected the Kirana shop of the petitioner, on 18-9-1986, at about 9-45 a. m. The petitioner was doing business at the time of inspection made by the Food Inspector.

( 4 ) THE Food Inspector opponent No. 2, original complainant called a panch Kabruddin Mirzabmiya and in presence of panch the Food Inspector who is hereinafter referred to as complainant, purchased 400 gms. of groundnut oil from the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as accused" for the sake of convenience and brevity ). The accused, thus, sold groundnut oil from the open tin lying in his shop to the complainant, Food Inspector. The accused was paid Rs. 3. 00 by the complainant for purchase of sample of groundnut oil. The complainant observed necessary legal formalities in presence of panch and collected the sample of groundnut oil in three bottles which were separately packed in brown paper and labels with code number, serial number, and signature of Local Health Authority were applied. The signature of the accused and panch had also been taken and panchnama was prepared.

( 5 ) THE sample of groundnut oil collected by the complainant from the shop of the accused was analysed by the Public Analyst. On analysis it was found that the sample of groundnut oil collected from the shop of accused was adulterated. It was the opinion of the Public Analyst that the said sample of groundnut oil did not conform to the standard laid down under the provision of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (rules for short ). The report of the Public Analyst, at Exh. 10, also indicated that the sample groundnut oil was lacking the required quality and standard. In short, the sample groundnut oil was found adulterated which can be manifested from the following tabular data. Appendix B, as per Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, provides the definition and standard of quality of the Food. A. 17. 03 in Appendix B, provides the standard of quality of groundnut oil. Found as per report. (a) Butyro-refractomcter 54. 0 to 57. 1 B. R. at 40c - 50. 0 reading 40c (b) Saponification value. 188 to 196 Sap. Value - 190. 3 (c) Iodine Value 85 to 99 Iodine value - 57. 69 (d) Unsaponifiable matter Not more than Unsap-matter - 0. 348% 1. 0 per cent (e) Free fatty acid as Not more than Free fatty acid - 2. 0304% oleic acid 3. 0 per cent (f) Bellier test turbidity temper- Bellier test - 22c ature Acetic acid method 39c to 41 C having found that the sample of groundnut oil was adulterated, the Food inspector, complainant, obtained written consent order of the Competent authority as required under Sec. 20 of the Act and instituted a criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad under the provisions of Sec. 16 (l) (a) (i) read with Sec. 7 of the Act. In said criminal trial being Summary Case No. 92 of 1980, the learned metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad, on appreciation of evidence, found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 16 (l) (a) (i) of the Act and sentenced the