He sent a detailed report about the result of the examination on January 24, 1955.
This sample was analysed by Dulal Chandra Dey, Court Witness number 1, and found to be adulterated with groundnut oil.
One of them was given to appel lant No.
The report of the Analyst was, however, sent to the Court under the signature of Dr. S. K. Chatterjee, D. W. 2, Deputy Director of Health Services, Government of West Bengal.
He was number questioned about the police taking any sample of the oil.
The companysignment of oil was from the manufacturing firm, appellant number 1, to itself at Calcutta.
The other two were kept by Dr. Bagui.
selling and keeping for sale mustard oil, a sample of which was found on analysis to be mustard oil which was adulterated with groundnut oil.
The opinion of Sri Mitra about the nature of that sample therefore does number go against the opinion of Sri Sen and Sri Dey that the mustard oil analysed by them was adulterated with groundnut oil.
In these circumstances, the finding of the Courts below that the mustard oil in the appellants tank wagon was adulterated is companyrect.
101 of 1956 arising out of the judgment and order dated January 16, 1956, of the Second Court of the Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, in case No.
Further, there is numbergood evidence on the record to establish that the sample sent to Sri Mitra was a sample from the appellants tank wagon.
There seems to be numbergood reason for the police taking a sample of oil for the purpose of analysis and finding out whether the mustard oil was pure or number.
4 of s. 462 of the Act, and which had number been rebutted on behalf of the appellants.
75612.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 2, 1957, of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
B. Aggarwala, B. B. Tawakley and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant.
Nalin Chandra Bannerjee, Sunil K. Basu, S. N. Mukherjee for K. Bose, for the respondent No.
The appellants appear to have sent the sample of oil in their possession to Om Prakash, Oil Expert to the U.P. Government, who reported on July 27, 1955, that the sample companyforms to Agmark Specification for Mustard Oil and is companysidered to be free from adulterants such as sesame, groundnut and linseed oil.
Mr. Sen reported on January 4, 1955, that the oil was adulterated.
The case put to Dr. Bagui during his cross examination, on behalf of the appellants, appears to have been that he himself had taken four samples of the mustard oil in question and that one of those samples was sent to the Enforcement Branch.
This wagon was placed at the Pathuriaghat siding at Calcutta at about 8.45 a.m., on January 3, 1955.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the Order of the Calcutta High Court affirming the companyviction of the appellants Messrs. Madan Mohan Damma Mal Ltd., and Om Prokash Manglik, its Manager, under s. 462 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 W. B. XXXIII of 1951 hereinafter called the Act.
It is number established that the sample of mustard oil sent to Sri Mitra by the Deputy Commissioner of the Enforcement Branch companytained mustard oil from this tank wagon.
Sri Mitras reply to the query from the Deputy Commissioner of Police for clarification, makes this very clear.
The companyrectness of his opinion on these data is admitted by Sri Mitra, D.W. 7.
He sent one of them to the Public Analyst for examination, the same day.
This report does number establish that the sample was of pure mustard oil.
The legal implication of the expression is that the sample will have the benefit of doubt.
2, who was found near the wagon, the purchase of 12 ounces of oil for annas eight.
November 24.
Ashit Ranjan Sen, the Public Analyst, examined the oil companytained in that phial on January 3, 1955, but companyld number companye to any positive opinion about its purity.
They were properly sealed.
He took the sample of oil in three phials.
Sri S. N. Mitra, D. W. 7, examined this sample and reported, on the basis of its saponification value to be 173.3, and iodine value to be 105, that the sample approximated to the standards of genuine mustard oil.
Dr. Nityananda Bagui, Food Inspector of the Calcutta Corporation, accompanied by certain police officers, went to that siding and took three samples of mustard oil companytained in this wagon, after arranging with Om Prokash Manglik, appellant No.
On receipt of the report about the mustard oil being adulterated, Dr. Bagui filed a companyplaint against the appellants on February 4, 1955, with respect to their.
The oil in the tank was allowed to be removed to the godown of the appellants on January 6, 1955.
1 sent a companysignment of mustard oil, about 499 maunds in weight, from Firozabad, the place of manufacture, to itself, at Calcutta, on December 25, 1954, in tank wagon No.
208B of 1955.
The facts leading to this appeal are that Messrs. Madan Mohan Damma Mal Ltd., hereinafter called appellant No.
118 of 1959.
In the present case the sample of mustard oil has already been examined exhaustively and has been certified as approximating to standards but number as genuine.
The lock of the godown was then sealed with the seal of the Corporation.
The Courts below found on the evidence that the mustard oil in the appellants tank wagon was adulterated with groundnut oil, that the appellants were in possession of that oil and had stored that oil for sale, in view of the presumption arising under subs.
Dr. Bagui, however, seized the tank wagon that evening, sealed it with the Corporations seal and left it in the custody of appellant No.
During the companyrse of the trial, the trial Court, on an application on behalf of the appellants, ordered the despatch of the third sample phial of the oil in the custody of the Corporations Health Officer, to the Director of Health Services, Government of West Bengal, for analysis and report.
Dr. Bagui does number depose about the police people taking a sample of oil.
