1000/ , The companyviction and sentence were companyfirmed, on appeal, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.
The report also mentioned that added companyl tar dyes were absent.
Thereafter there was a stale mate for about two years.
After analysis the Director, Central Food Laboratory sent his report on October 26, 1973.
There was every possibility of the free fatty acid companytent of the sample having increased enormously by oxidation during storage.
One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis.
The appellant was companyvicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.
2 of free fatty acid as oleic acid as against the permissible 25.
This was accordingly done.
On April 17, 1973, the appellant moved the Trial Court to send another part of the sample for analysis to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory.
One of the submissions made before the lower companyrts and the only submission number made before us is that the analysis by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta was made nearly three years after the sample was taken.
A revision preferred to the High Court of Delhi was dismissed in limine.
The precise date of analysis by the Director, Central Food Laboratory is number evident from the record.
The Public Analyst reported on October 27, 1970 that the sample was adulterated because of the presence of unpermitted companyl tar dye.
A sample was received by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta on May 2, 1973.
According to the report the sample was adulterated as the vanaspati used in the sample of Dal Biji companytained 42.
A companyplaint was finally filed against the appellant on November 13, 1972.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. On October 17, 1970, a Food Inspector of the Delhi Municipal Corporation purchased a sample of Dal Biji from the shop of the appellant.
