Case: Jaswinder Singh Versus Municipal Committee Amritsar (Criminal Appeal No. 269 Of 1971) Girdhari Lal Versus Municipal Committee, Amritsar (Criminal Appeal No. 270 Of 1971) Sikander Lal Versus Municipal Committee, Amritsar (Criminal Appeal No. 271 Of 1971) Banarsi Das Versus Municipal Committee, Amritsar (Criminal Appeal No. 272 Of 1971) Manohar Lal Versus Municipal Committee, Amritsar (Criminal Appeal No. 290 Of 1971) Vs.

The appellants in all these five appeals by special leave were convicted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (referred to as the Act hereinafter) and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further two months. They were acquitted by the trial Court, and the Municipal Committee Amritsar, appealed to the High Court against the orders of acquittal. The High Court found them guilt of being of adulterated toria oil for sale and thereby committing an offence punishable under the aforesaid provision. The Municipal Food Inspector purchased the samples in each of these cases on December 12, 1967. It was conceded before the High Court that the samples purchased by the Food Inspector did not measure up to the standard laid down in the Act and the rules made thereunder for edible, oils, but it was contended that toria oil was not mentioned in the list of edible oils and was not an item for which any standard was prescribed. The High Court found that toria oil was really mustard oil and held that the offence was established. The trial Court had held that the rules framed under the Act which were in force at the time when the samples were purchased did not include toria oil in the list of edible oils. The trial Court also referred to the definition of mustard seed as it stood when the samples were purchased.

Reasoning:
It would appear that the amended definition of mustard seed includes dried seeds of brassica compestris to which class toria admittedly belongs. Before the amendment, the definition of mustard seed referred to "allied" varieties of brassica. The trial Court thought that as the definition of mustard seed containing a reference to toria came into force after December 12, 1967 when the samples in these cases were purchased and as the definition as it stood at the relevant time did not mention toria, toria oil could not be called mustard oil when the samples taken. On this view the trial Court acquitted the accused in all these cases3. If toria oil did not fall within the definition of mustard oil, the trial Court would be obviously right in taking the view it did. As will appear from the definition of mustard oil, it is oil expressed from mustard seeds belonging inter alia to the compestris variety of brassica. It is not disputed that toria seeds belong to the compestris variety of brassica. The amended definition of mustard seed only makes this clear. The previous definition of mustard seed referred to allied varieties of brassica, and the amended definition specified the varieties.