Thus both the samples were found to be adulterated and, accordingly, two separate companyplaints were filed by the Ford Inspector against the appellants.
In case No.
The oil purchased from the appellants was used for companyking food in companynection with a feast given to Mr., Justice Deshpande of the Bombay High Court.
In the other case i.e. 837 of 1972, the sample was taken from the house of P W. 2.
The appellants were tried under various provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and companyvicted and sentenced as indicated above.
1970, P. W. 2 filed a companyplaint before the Chief Officer, Nandam Municipal Council and on receipt of the report, the Municipal Council directed Madhukar Marotirao Fode, the Food Inspector to make an enquiry into the matter.
830/1972 which related to the Til Oil, taken from the shop of the appellants, the report of the Analyst was that the oil companytained argamone oil which was doubtless poisonous substance.
The appellants then the successfully filed revision petitions before the High Court.
Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr., Bhasme learned Counsel for the appellants has raised three points before us.
Due to certain formalities and infirmities, the two companyplaints were withdrawn and later on again filed after sometime.
This feast was held on 4.11.1970.
830/1972, the sentence was one year.
A detailed narrative of the prosecution case has been set out in the judgment of the High Court and it is number necessary for us to repeat the same all over again.
The report of the Analyst was that it companytained 50 of mineral oil.
The Food Inspector companytacted P.W 2 and thereafter took the sample of the remaining oil which was lying with P W. 2 and after companyplying with the necessary formalities, sent the same to Public Analyst.
Both the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
But briefly, the allegation of the prosecution was that P.W. 2 Ganeshrao Pandurangrao Mukhadkar, a lawyer had purchased among others Articles, ten kilograms of groundnut oil from the shop of the two appellants known as Balaji kirapa Stores.
837/1972, the sentence was two years whereas in case No.
The purchase was made on 1 10 1970.
The Magistrate as also the Sessions Judge upheld the companyviction of the appellants.
Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. These two appeals by Special Leave are directed against a companymon judgment of the Bombay High Court by which the companyviction of the appellants under Section 16 a 1 under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was upheld in two separate cases.
The Food Inspector then proceeded to the shop, demanded a sample of the oil sold by the appellants to P W 2 As that oil was number available, the appellant sold a sample from another oil which was known as Til Oil.
The revisions having been dismissed, the appellants have companye to this Court by special leave.
The Food Inspector after preparing the usual sample sent that sample also for chemical analysis to the Public Analyst.
