M.Murtaza Husain, J. - (1.)THIS criminal revision is directed against the order dated 6-2-79 passed by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1978 whereby he dismissed that appeal and upheld the order dated 20-3-78 passed by a Magistrate of the First Class at Lucknow. Through that order the revisionist was convicted by the learned Magistrate under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000, or in default to undergo further R. I. for three months.
(2.)THE undisputed facts of the case under revision are that the revisionist is running a coffee house in the market of Qaiserbagh in the city of Lucknow. That shop is known as Janta Coffee House. Besides serving coffee to the customers, snacks and refreshments are also prepared at that shop for being sold to customers. A sign-board is displayed out of the shop on which it is written that the medium of cooking used at the Coffee House was groundnut oil. On 24 5 75 the Food Inspector, Sri G. B. Krishna Kumar, P. W. 1, visited revisionist's shop. Some oil was found kept in a tin container inside the kitchen of the shop. THE revisionist represented to the Food Inspector that the said container contained groundnut oil which was meant for preparation of edibles at the shop. THE Food Inspector purchased 375 milligrams of oil from that container and paid Rs. 3 as its price to the revisionist. Necessary formalities for purchasing that sample and for sealing it were observed. Public Analyst's report was sent for. It disclosed that the sample was not of groundnut oil but it was of safflower oil (Barrey Ka Tel). THE Additional Nagar Swastha Adhikari, Lucknow perused the Public Analyst's report and came to the conclusion that the revisionist should be prosecuted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as he had stored misbranded oil for sale. A complaint was then filed against the revisionist. He admitted that sample of oil was purchased from him by the Food Inspector but he maintained that it was of pure Barrey oil and it was not stored or exposed for sale.
The prosecution relied upon the statements of the Food Inspector and S. K. Saxena, PW 2, about purchase of sample of oil from revisionist's shop by the Food Inspector, Sri G. B. Krishna Kumar. It also relied on Public Analyst's report. The revisionist led no evidence in his defence. The learned Magistrate believed the prosecution evidence and finding the revisionist guilty under Sections 7/16 of the said Act convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. The appeal preferred by the revisionist before the Sessions Judge against that conviction and sentence was dismissed in its entirety.

It has not been disputed before me that sample of oil was purchased by the Food Inspector from the revisionist's shop on 24-5-1975 after paying its price to him. It has also not been disputed that the sample thus purchased was duly sealed and Public Analyst's report was obtained which proved that the sample was of pure Barrey Ka Tel. The contention of the revisionist before this Court is two-fold. Firstly it is alleged that the revisionist had not represented the aforesaid oil to be groundnut oil and had plainly told the Food Inspector that it was Barrey Ka Tel. Secondly, it has been contended that it was not proved that the oil, whose sample was purchased by the Food Inspector, was stored by the revisionist for sale as such. On the other hand, it is contended that it was for preparation of edibles and therefore, the Food Inspector was not competent to purchase its sample and the revisionist cannot be held guilty under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.)SO far as the first contention is concerned, the concurrent finding of the two courts below, based upon oral as well as documentary evidence, is that the revisionist had represented to the Food Inspector that the container of oil, from which sample was purchased by the Food Inspector contained groundnut oil. The Food Inspector as well as R. K. Saxena P. W. 2 have stated about it. An endorsement in revisionist's hand appearing on the back of notice Ex. Ka-1, which endorsement is Ex. Ka-2, shows that the revisionist had represented the aforesaid oil to be of groundnut. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the revisionist's plea that he had sold sample of oil to the Food Inspector representing the same to be of Safflower is not correct. On the other hand, the two courts below have lightly held that the said sample was sold by the revisionist representing it to be of groundnut oil. The revisionist having falsely represented Safflower to be groundnut oil obviously sold misbranded article of food, and, therefore, he should be held guilty if his second contention does not prevail.
Coming to the second contention of the revisionist, it is prosecution's own case that the revisionist is not a dealer in edible oil. On the other hand, he is running a Coffee House where snacks and other articles of food are prepared for being offered to the customers. The oil which was found at the shop of the revisionist at the time of Food Inspector's visit was stored for being used as a medium for cooking those articles. It was never intended for sale as such. In Om Prakash v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 195 a Bench of two Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court laid down that :-

"The law is now well settled that the act of storing an adulterated article of food would be an offence only if storing is for sale. If adulterated article of food is stored by any person for consumption or for any purpose other than sale, it would not come within the inhibition of the section."