Mustard oil containing free fatty acid below the statutory 6% limit is not sub-standard under PFA Rules.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the mustard oil seized from the petitioner's shop actually violated the prescribed statutory standards for free fatty acid as per the PFA Rules at the time of the occurrence

The court held

The Court answered the issues in favor of the petitioner, holding that the mustard oil seized complied with the standards prescribed under the PFA Act and Rules

It also directed

The Court held that the impugned judgments were illegal and perverse as they contradicted specific provisions of law

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, allowed the revision, and discharged the petitioner from all charges

01Facts

On August 30, 1990, a Food Inspector visited the petitioner’s Kirana shop in Dhanbad and purchased 375 grams of mustard oil for chemical analysis

p. 2

The Public Analyst reported that the sample was of sub-standard quality because it failed to meet the prescribed standards for free fatty acid under the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act

p. 2

Consequently, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, convicted the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the PFA Act on November 9, 1998, sentencing him to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-

p. 1

This conviction was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in an appeal dated December 11, 2002

p. 1

The petitioner subsequently filed this criminal revision challenging the concurrent findings

pp. 1-2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the mustard oil seized from the petitioner's shop actually violated the prescribed statutory standards for free fatty acid as per the PFA Rules at the time of the occurrence

pp. 3-4

ii.2. Whether the lower courts committed a legal error by failing to consider relevant government notifications regarding food standards

pp. 4-5

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act regarding the sale of sub-standard food

p. 1

It further relied on the standards defined in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, specifically the definition of mustard oil and the limits for "Acid Value"

p. 4

Crucially, the court applied Notification No. GSR 436 (E) dated 08.04.1988, which established that the acid value in mustard oil should not exceed 6.0

p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on the Public Analyst’s report (Exhibit-4), which claimed the oil was sub-standard due to its free fatty acid content

pp. 3-4

However, the High Court noted that both the trial and appellate courts failed to verify the actual departmental notification governing those standards

p. 4

Upon review of the PFA Rules and the 1988 Notification, the Court found that the permissible limit for acid value was up to 6%

p. 4

In the present case, the Chemical Analyst’s report showed a free fatty acid content of only 0.31%, which was well within the legal limit of 6%

p. 4

Consequently, the Court reasoned that the oil was not "sub-standard" under the law, and the lower courts had reached a perverse conclusion by ignoring the specific legal provisions and notifications that favored the petitioner

p. 5

05Holding

The Court answered the issues in favor of the petitioner, holding that the mustard oil seized complied with the standards prescribed under the PFA Act and Rules

p. 5

The Court held that the impugned judgments were illegal and perverse as they contradicted specific provisions of law

p. 5

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, allowed the revision, and discharged the petitioner from all charges

p. 5

LawLens.Jharkhand High Court

Original Court PDF