The judgment establishes the importance of proper sample collection, adherence to prescribed standards, and the significance of variance in reports under the Adulteration Act 1954.

( 1 ) MUNICIPAL Corporation, Khandwa, has preferred the present appeal against the judgment acquitting the accused-respondent. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 20-7-1999, hence this appeal has come up for decision.

( 2 ) PROSECUTION case in brief is that on 18-2-1981 Shri Dashrath Singh Tomar (P. W. 1) who was posted at the relevant time as Health Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Khandwa, visited Narendra Industries. He had been conferred with the powers of Food Inspector by the State Government. After visiting the said Industry said Health Officer gave a notice under Form 6 of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience) and took the sample of Refined Rape Seed Oil. Food Inspector was authorised to file the complaint and collect the samples. After giving notice Food Inspector purchased 3. 75 grams of oil from tank No. 5 which was stored in the Oil Mill vide receipt (Ex. P-6 ). Oil purchased by him was divided into three parts and after division those three parts were kept in three separate bottles. The bottles were sealed properly in the presence of accused the erstwhile manager of the said Industry. One of the samples was sent to the public analyst, Indore vide Ex. P-9. Remaining two bottles were kept with the Chief Medical Officer under receipt (Ex. P-10 ). Report of the Public Analyst was received on 16-2-1981 and as per the report of the public analyst the sample was found to be adulterated.

( 3 ) THE accused also got the sample analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory under S. 13 (2) of the Act. As per the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as C. F. L. for convenience) the refined rape-seed oil was found to be adulterated. Hence complaint under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) was filed by Dashrath Singh Tomar, the Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation, Khandwa. Chief Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the offence was not proved as the oil collected was not stirred by the Food Inspector and also it was not taken out with the help of clean utensils.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that acquittal of the accused is bad in law as there is clear evidence to show that the bottles in which samples were collected were clean and dry. His further submission is that the utensil used for taking out the oil from the tank was used for the same purpose, hence even if it was not cleaned at the relevant time, it could not be held that sample was not collected properly. His further submission is that it was none of the duties of the Food Inspector to collect the representative sample even if it was collected in the bottles. Nonetheless it was the material found to be adulterated, hence accused was to be convicted. His further submission is that though there is variance in the two reports, the oil was found to be adulterated as it did not meet the prescribed standard. The deposition of Sarad Chand Jaini could not have been taken into consideration by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as he did not possess any qualification in the Oil Chemistry.

( 5 ) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently submitted that in the order of acquittal scope of interference is very limited. The view adopted by the trial Court is proper and reasonable one. HIS further submission is that the utensil which was used for collecting the sample was not cleaned in the presence of the Food Inspector. There is no satisfactory evidence that it was a clean utensil. He further submitted that the sample was collected from the bottom of the tank No. 5. In tank No. 5 oil remained below the tap level. It was not even stirred before being taken out of the tank for purchase by the Food Inspector. His further submission is that there is variance in the report of the public analyst and the Director of Central Food Laboratory which indicates that the samples were not collected in the proper manner. Counsel for the appellant p