1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned  Spl.P.P. appearing for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 11.12.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-II, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.11.1998 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in P.F.A. Case No. 26/1991 / T.R. NO. 606/1998, whereby the learned trial court has found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(I) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months along with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 30.08.1990 at about 11:00 A.M., Food Inspector, Sumant Kumar Singh visited the Kirana Shop of the petitioner. The Food Inspector has purchased 375 grams of mustard oil from the shop of the petitioner for chemical analysis. The Food Inspector divided the mustard oil in three equal parts and kept the same in three clear bottles and fixed the corks on each bottle. Thereafter, he sealed the bottles and fixed labels thereon. Thereafter, he covered the bottles and sealed the same. The Food Inspector served notice to the petitioner in Form-VI. The Food Inspector sent one part of the sample to the Public Analyst, Dhanbad and kept two parts with him. After receipt of report of Public Analyst, Dhanbad, the Food Inspector prepared a complaint petition, obtained sanction letter and filed the same in the court of S.D.J.M, Dhanbad for taking cognizance in this case. The S.D.J.M., Dhanbad took cognizance of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of P.F.A. Act against the petitioner and kept the same in his personal file for trial and disposal.

4. The substance of accusation was explained to the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In the course of trial, altogether 03 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral evidence, several documentary evidences were also adduced.

6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 was recorded. The case of defence is of false implication.

7. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court found and held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of P.F.A. Act and judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed against him, as stated above.

8. The aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No. 179/1998 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-II, Dhanbad, but the same has been dismissed, which has been assailed in this revision.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below have committed serious illegality while ignoring the very notification concerning to the standard of mustard oil. Admittedly, the Food Inspector (Informant) has purchased 375 grams of mustard oil from the shop of petitioner, which was sent to the Public Analyst for examination and the report of Public Analyst shows that the mustard oil is of sub-standard quality because it does not confirm the prescribed standard of free fatty acid as laid down in P.F.A. Act.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submits that no standard prescribed by P.F.A. Act was produced before the concerned trial court for arriving at right conclusion. The petitioner has relied upon the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, wherein mustard oil has been defined. Mustard Oil means the oil expressed from clean and sound mustard seeds, belonging to the compestris, juncea or napur varieties of Brassica. It shall confirm the following standards :-

                  Butryo-refractometer reading at 40°C 58.0 to 60.5

                  OR

                  Refractive Index at 40°C… 1.4646-1.4662 Saponification value…  168 to 177

                  Iodine value……[96 to 112 polybromide test shall be negative.] Unsaponifiable matter … Not more than 1.2 per cent by weight.

                  Acid value …………………………………..Not more than 6.0 [As per notification No. GSR 436 (E) dated 08.04.1988]

11. He further submits that the occurrence is of the year 1990.

                  The mustard oil purchased from the shop of the petitioner comes within the standard provided by notification. The learned trial court as well as appellate court has failed to consider that simply Chemical Analyst Report (Exhibit-4) was produced by the prosecution and the copy of Notification was not adduced in evidence. Under what ground the report submitted by the Analyst has not been elicited through cross-examination due to his non-examination. It is further submitted that free fatty acid was found 0.31%, which is below 6% as prescribed. Therefore, both the courts i.e. trial court as well as appellate court have committed serious illegality and the impugned judgment is illegal and perverse. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is liable to be set aside, by allowing this revision.

12. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions but considering the standard prescribed in notification issued under P.F.A. Act, he could not be able to point out any objection.

13. I have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court, it appears that the mustard oil purchased from the shop of the petitioner and after chemical examination and Analyst Report was found to be sub-standard quality only regard with the percentage of fatty acid, but the notification, at the relevant time of the occurrence, clearly shows that the fatty acid in the mustard oil should not be more than 6%, therefore, mustard oil seized from the shop of the petitioner comes within standard prescribed under the Act and Rules. Therefore, I find that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court is absolutely illegal, perverse and against the specific provisions of law. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside.

14. This revision is allowed.

15. Petitioner is discharge from the charges leveled against him.

16. Pending I.A. if any stands disposed of.

17. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful.