N Criminal Appeal No 115 of 1975
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 10 1 1972 of the Madras High Court in Crl
Appeal No 64 No 65770
A V Rangam for the Appellant
A T M Sampath for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY J
On November 1 1969 a sample of gingelly oil was purchased by the Food Inspector Madurai Municipality from the shop of the first respondent who is now reported to be dead and against whom this appeal has therefore abated
At that time respondent No 2 was attending to the business
After completing the necessary formalities the Food Inspector arranged to send one part of the sample to the Public Analyst at Madras for analysis
The sample was analysed by the Public Analyst on November 11 1969 and it was reported by him that it contained 51 of Free Fatty Acid as against the limit of 30 permissible under clause A1711 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955
In his report he also mentioned that the sample was properly sealed it was air and moisture tight and packed in thick paper so as to be proof against light and the Free Fatty Acid content of the oil would therefore remain unchanged for several months
On receipt of the Public Analyst s report a complaint was filed against the two respondents for an offence under sec
161 a and Sec
7i read with sec
2i L and Clause A1711 of Appendix B  to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
Both the respondents denied the offence
The 776 second respondent stated that he signed on the various documents produced by the prosecution as he was asked to do so by the Inspector
He did not read the contents of those documents
The brother of the second respondent was examined as a defence witness and he stated that he was in the shop when the Food Inspector came there and purchased the sample and that at the time of the sale the Food Inspector was told that the gingelly oil was not meant to be used as an article of food but was meant for oil bath
At the trial a request was made by the respondents that another part of the sample which had been produced by the Food Inspector in the Court might be sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory Calcutta for analysis
It was sent as desired
The sample was analysed by the Director Central Food Laboratory Calcutta on February 6 1970
According to his report the gingelly oil contained 62 of Free Fatty Acid and was therefore adulterated
The learned District Magistrate Madurai acquitted both the respondents observing that the Free Fatty Acid had increased from 51 to 62 between November 11 1969 and February 6 1970 and it was therefore likely that the Free Fatty Acid content in the oil might have similarly increased between November 1 1969 when the sample was taken and November 11 1969 when the sample was analysed by the Public Analyst Madras
On that ground the District Magistrate held that it was not possible to say that the prosecution had established that on the date when the sample was taken the Free Fatty Acid content of the oil exceeded 3
The State preferred an appeal to the Madras High Court against the order of acquittal
The High Court confirmed the order of acquittal for the same reason as that given by the District Magistrate
The State has filed this appeal after obtaining special leave of this Court under Art 136 of the Constitution
Under Sec 2iL before it was amended in 1976 of the  an article of food is deemed to be adulterated if the quality of purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities which are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability
Paragraph A1711 of Appendix B  to the Rules made under the prescribes the standard in the case of Til oil Gingelly or seasame oil and to the extent relevant it reads as follows A1711
Til oil Gingelly or sesame oil means the oil expressed from clean and sound seeds of Til Sesamum indicum black brown white or mixed
It shall be clear free 777 from rancidity suspended or other foreign matter separated water added colouring or flavouring substances or mineral oil
It shall conform to the following standards a Butyro rafractometer reading at 40oC  580 to 61 b Saponification value  188 to 193 c Iodine value  105 to 115 d Unsaponifiable matter 
Not more than 15 per cent
e Free fatty acid as Oleic acid
Not more than 30 per cent
f Bellier testTurbidity temperature Not more than Acetic acid method
22oC  Now a sample of food purchased by a Food Inspector has to be divided by him into 3 parts and each part has to be marked sealed and fastened separately
Before the Act was amended in 1976 one part was to be delivered to the person from whom the sample was taken another part was to be sent for analysis to the Public Analyst and the third part was to be retained with the Food Inspector to be produced by him in case legal proceedings were taken or it became necessary to send it for analysis to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory
The Public Analyst was required to deliver a report of the result of his analysis and this report was ordinarily the foundation of the prosecution by the Food Inspector
After the institution of the prosecution the accused was given the right to request the Court to send the third part of the sample retained by the Food Inspector to the Director Central Food Laboratory for a certificate
The Director Central Food Laboratory was required to send to the Court a certificate specifying the result of his analysis and the certificate of the Director Central Food Laboratory thereupon superseded the Public Analyst s report
The Public Analyst s report if not superseded by the Certificate of the Director
Central Food Laboratory and the Certificate of the Director Central Food Laboratory might be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under the Act with this difference that the certificate of the Director Central Food Laboratory was to be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein
In the present case the certificate of the Director showed that the sample of gingelly oil contained 62 of Free Fatty Acid whereas the permissible limit was 3 only
We are not concerned with the Public Analyst s report since that has been superseded by the certificate of the Director Central Food Laboratory and the latter certificate has been made conclusive evidence of the facts mentioned in it
The sample it must therefore be found was adulterated
778 The sample as we mentioned earlier was taken on November 1 1969 the analysis by the Public Analyst was on November 11 1969 and the analysis by the Director Central Food Laboratory was on February 6 1970
The learned District Magistrate and the High Court thought that although the Free Fatty Acid content in that part of the sample which was sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory was 62 on the date when the Director analysed the oil it could not be said to have been established that on the date when the sample was taken by the Food Inspector the Free Fatty Acid content exceeded 3
According to them it could well be that the Free Fatty Acid content increased due to natural causes
We are unable to agree with the lower Courts
There is nothing in the evidence nor has anything been shown to us from any scientific work which would suggest that the Free Fatty Acid content would so rapidly increase in the space of about three months that what was less than 3 on November 1 1969 when the sample was taken increased to 62 by February 6 1970 when the sample was analysed by the Central Food Laboratory
On the other hand in the New Encyclopaedia Britannica Volume 13 pages 526 527 it is said Fats can be heated to between 200o and 250oC without undergoing significant changes provided contact with air or oxygen is avoided
On exposure to air oils and fats gradually undergo certain changes
The drying oils absorb oxygen dry and polymerize readily thin layers form a skin or protective film
The semidrying oils absorb oxygen more slowly and are less useful as paint oils
Still sufficient oxygen is absorbed in time to produce distinct thickening and some film formation
Oxidation of the drying and semidrying oils is accelerated by spreading the oil over a large surface
On greasy cloths for example oxygen absorption may proceed so rapidly that spontaneous combustion ensues
The nondrying oils of which olive oil is typical do not oxidize readily on exposure to air although changes do take place gradually including slow hydroysis splitting to fatty acids and glycerol and subsequent oxidation
This slow oxidation causes a disagreeable smell and taste described by the term rancidity
779 The chemical reactions involved in oil oxidation have been studied widely when oils and fats are exposed to air little change takes place for a period of time that varies from oil to oil depending upon the amount and type of unsaturation and the content of natural antioxidants
During this so called induction period there is virtually no change in either odour or chemistry of the oil because of the protective effect of natural antioxidants especially tocopherol
Gradually the effectiveness of the anti oxidant is overcome and there is an accelerating rate of oxidation of unsaturated acids called autoxidation
Chemically the first identifiable oxidation products are hydroperoxides
These break down into a large variety of low molecular weight aldehydes esters alcohols ketones acids and hydrocarbons some of which possess the pungent disagreeable odours characteristic of rancid fats
In soyabean oil exposed to air to the point of incipient rancidity more than 100 different oxidation products have been identified
Natural oils such as coconut oil with very low levels of unsaturation are very stable to flavour deterioration but the more highly unsaturated oils such as soyabean oil or safflower oil lose their flavour more quickly
Sesame oil is unique in its flavour stability because of the presence of several natural antioxidants sesamin sesamolin sesamol
Synthetic antioxidants such as propyl gallate butylated hydroxyanisole BHA and butylated hydroxytoluene BHT have been used to retard the onset of rancidity and increase the storage life of edible fats
Gingelly Til or seasame oil we may mention is a semi drying oil
From the extract from the Encyclopaedia Britannica it is only after prolonged exposure to air and light that there may be some discernible chemical changes in gingelly til or seasame oil
In fact it is mentioned in the Encyclopaedia Britannica that seasame oil is unique in its flavour stability because of the presence of several natural antioxidants
There is nothing to indicate that the samples were not packed as required by the rules
The report of the Public Analyst mentions The sample has been received properly sealed to be air and moisture tight and packed in thick paper to be proof against access to light
Under these conditions the Free Fatty Acid content of oils 780 remains unchanged for several months
The certificate of the Director Central Food Laboratory mentions The seals were intact
We are therefore clearly of opinion that there was no justification for the conclusion of the District Magistrate and the High Court that the Free Fatty Acid content of the oil on the date when the sample was taken might have been less than 3 and therefore not adulterated
We set aside the judgments of the District Magistrate and the High Court and convict the second respondent under Sec
161ai read with sec
7i and 2i L of the and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs 100 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks
We are imposing a nominal sentence having regard to the circumstance that we are interfering with a concurrent order of acquittal more than ten years after the commission of the offence


Summary:
Under section 2iL before it was amended in 1976 of the  an article of food is deemed to be adulterated if the quality of purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities which are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability
On November 1 1969 sample of gingelly oil was purchased by the Municipal Food Inspector from the shop of the respondents
After completing the necessary formalities the Food Inspector arranged to send one part of the sample to the Public Analyst for analysis
The Public Analyst analysed the sample on November 11 1969 and reported that it contained 51 of Free Fatty Acid as against the permissible limit of 3
On receipt of the report the respondents were prosecuted for offences under Section 161ai read with Section 7i and 2iL of the 
At the trial in pursuance of the respondents request another sample was got analysed on February 6 1970 by the Director Central Food Laboratory
According to his report the gingelly oil contained 62 of the Free Fatty Acid and was therefore adulterated
The District Magistrate observing that the Free Fatty Acid had increased from 51 to 62 between November 11 1969 and February 6 1970 and it was therefore likely that the Free Fatty Acid content in the oil might have similarly increased between November 1 1969 when the sample was taken and November 11 1969 when the sample was analysed by the Public Analyst held that it was not possible to say that the prosecution had established that on the date when the sample was taken the Free Fatty Acid content of the oil exceed 3 and acquitted the respondents
The order of acquittal was confirmed by the High Court
In the appeal to this Court it was  HELD1 i The judgments of the District Magistrate and the High Court are set aside
The second respondent is convicted under Section 161ai and sentenced to pay a fine
780C ii There was no justification for the conclusion of the District Magistrate and the High Court that the Free Fatty Acid content of the oil on the date when the sample was taken might have been less than 3 and therefore not adulterated
780B 775 In the instant case the Public Analyst report had been superseded by the certificate of the Director Central Food Laboratory and the latter certificate had become conclusive evidence of the facts mentioned in it
The sample must therefore be held to be adulterated
There was nothing in the evidence nor had anything been shown from any scientific work which would suggest that the Free Fatty Acid content would so rapidly increase in the space of about three months
If it was less than 3 on November 1 1969 when the sample was taken it could not have increased to 62 by February 6 1970 when the sample was analysed by the Central Food Laboratory
777H 778D 2
Gingelly Til or Sesame oil is a semi drying oil
It is only after Prolonged exposure to air and light that there may be some discernible chemical changes in gingelly Til or sesame oil
779G New Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol
13 pages 526 527 referred to