PARITOSH GORAIN vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

Court
Jharkhand High Court

2026:JHHC:15273


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 27 of 2003
------
Paritosh Gorain, Son of Jaidev Gorain, Resident of Garikhana
(Bardanga), P.S. – Chirkunda, Dist.- Dhanbad.
.... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party
------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shwetang Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.
------
JUDGMENT

Dated- 15.05.2026
By Court:- 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.

1

2026:JHHC:15273


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.
2

2026:JHHC:15273


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
3

2026:JHHC:15273


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

4

2026:JHHC:15273

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.

5

2026:JHHC:15273


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.


(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated : 15/05/2026
Sunil/- NAFR
Uploaded On 19/05/2026
6