JUDGMENT Rampini and Handley, JJ. - This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of the 24-Perganas to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the accused should not be set aside on the ground that, having found that the oil sold was an article of commerce, it was incumbent on the Magistrate to find whether or not it was an article commercially known as mustard oil before he could determine the guilt or innocence of the Petitioner and also it was incumbent on him to find whether or not the article sold, even if it was adulterated, was adulterated to the prejudice of the purchaser. 2. The facts are that a Food Inspector, Dr. P.C. Lahiri, purchased two samples of mustard oil from the accused's manufactory. On analysis they were found to be adulterated with til oil. The accused was then tried and convicted u/s 495 of the Bengal Act III of 1899 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200. On appeal to the Sessions Judge the conviction was affirmed, but the fine reduced to Rs. 50. The accused then obtained the Rule set forth above. 3. It is not denied that the mustard oil in question was adulterated. It is admitted that it is the practice of the Applicant and other native manufacturers in Calcutta to adulterate the mustard oil they manufacture not only with til oil, but with other adulterants, such as surguja, ground nuts and poppy seed. The defence is,-- (i) that this is necessary for the purpose of expressing, all the oil from the mustard seed ; (ii) that the product is what is commercially known as mustard oil; and (iii) that the adulteration is not to the prejudice of the purchaser. 4. The first of these pleas is manifestly untrue. It is proved in this case that both at the Alipore Jail, where the oil is expressed by hand-labour and in Messrs. Andrew Yule and Co.'s oil-mill at Howrah, where machinery is used for the purpose, mustard oil is manufactured without the use of any hard seed to assist in expressing the oil. The evidence on this point adduced on behalf of the accused is, as found by the Magistrate, entirely unreliable-One witness, Hem Chunder Bose, who has worked a steam oil mill for seven or eight years, says:--" Mustard alone will not give any oil"--a most palpable falsehood. The evidence on this point adduced on behalf of the accused is, as found by the Magistrate, entirely unreliable-One witness, Hem Chunder Bose, who has worked a steam oil mill for seven or eight years, says:--" Mustard alone will not give any oil"--a most palpable falsehood. Then, as the Magistrate points out,--" if the millers say that they want some hard seed to stiffen the mustard, the til, which is the softest of all adulterants is the least desirable, yet it is the most largely used. The only reason is that it gives relatively more oil and the millers want to save expense and increase profits." 5. The next point is whether the adulterated oil is what is commercially known as mustard oil. This the defence also entirely fails to prove. The witnesses who appear for the defence are many of them persons interested in mills who have a motive for supporting the defence in this contention. There is no evidence to the effect that what the public want and expect to get when they ask for mustard oil is the adulterated oil which the accused and other native manufacturers sell. The Food Inspector in this case asked for mustard oil and had a right to get it. On the other hand, Mr. Gibson of the Howrah Mills has stated that "the pure quality is the commercial mustard oil," and the seventh witness for the defence, an owner of two mills, says "that mustard oil is the pure quality." This seems to us to be beyond all doubt the truth. As the Magistrate says,--"Mustard oil, ghee, milk, etc., have a certain signification and when a person demands that article, he has a right to be supplied with that article and nothing else." If, when a purchaser asked for mustard oil, he were to be given adulterated mustard oil and this were held to be no offence under the Municipal Act, then the adulteration would increase in quantity. Any adulterant might be used and the quantity would be increased, so that soon in mustard oil so-called, the mustard oil would be conspicuous, if not for its entire absence, yet for its presence in only a very small degree. 6. The third plea raised for the defence is that the purchaser is not prejudiced by the adulteration. But in our opinion he must be prejudiced. 6. The third plea raised for the defence is that the purchaser is not prejudiced by the adulteration. But in our opinion he must be prejudiced. Mustard oil is used for cooking purposes and for external application. If it is adulterated, it becomes less suitable for these purposes. The more it is adulterated, the less it possesses the qualities for which it is purchased. Then the use of the adulterants is clearly for the purpose of increasing the bulk of the oil and the profit of the manufacturer. This must be to the prejudice of the purchaser, particularly when, as in this case, he is charged the same price as he would have had to pay for pure mustard oil. 6. The case of Baishtab Charan Das v. Upendra Nath Mitra (1898) 3 C.W.N. 66 has been cited. In that case there was no evidence produced to rebut the evidence adduced by the defence to the effect that what is commercially known as mustard oil is the adulterated oil. In this case such evidence has been produced and has been relied on by the lower Court with manifest propriety. 7. For these reasons we discharge the Rule.