JUDGMENT 1. THE appeal is by Messrs Tara Oil and Ginning Mills and Sew Doyal Kanoria who have been convicted by a learned Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with section 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereafter to be referred to as the Act) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each. In default of payment of the fine the second accused was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Two other accused, namely, accused nos. 3 and 4, were, however, given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The learned Magistrate further gave direction under sec. 11 (5) (b) of the Act for the destruction of the seized oil by the Food Inspector or the District Health Officer at the cost of the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The revisional petition has been filed against the said order of destruction, which has been heard along with the appeal. 2. THE case for the prosecution is as follows : on 31. 12. 59 Shri Sailesh Chandra Sen, a Food Inspector of the Calcutta Corporation, inspected the godown of the Tara Oil and Ginning Mills (accused No. 1) at P/38/l Strand Road, Calcutta. The accused No. 2 is the representative of accused No. 1. Inside the godown there were several tanks containing mustard oil. The Food Inspector took samples of the mustard oil from five of the tanks for analysis. On analysis by a Public Analyst (P. W. 4) no adulteration was found in four of the samples, but the fifth sample of oil taken from tank No. 1 inside the godown was found adulterated. Accordingly, prosecution was launched against the accused person on the complaint lodged by P. W. 1 on obtaining sanction of the health Officer. He also seized oil of the tank which was found adulterated and left the same in the custody of the accused No. 2. P. W. 1 also filed an application for destruction of the seized oil under section 11 (5) (b) of the Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and raised various contentions in the court below, all of which were overruled by the learned Presidency Magistrate. P. W. 1 also filed an application for destruction of the seized oil under section 11 (5) (b) of the Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and raised various contentions in the court below, all of which were overruled by the learned Presidency Magistrate. It has been urged that the appellant No. 1 Tara Oil and Ginning Mills is not a "person" within the meaning of section 7 and section 16 of the Act and so, it was not liable to be proceeded against under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with section 7 (1) of the Act. The word "person" has not been defined in the Act and so we have to fall back on the definition of "person" as given in the General Clauses Act. Under section 3 (42) the term "person" has been defined to include "any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not. " Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act makes a "company" as well as every person, who, at the time an offence under the Act was committed by the company, "was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company", liable to be proceeded against and punished for the offence. Under the Explanation to section 17 a "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals. It has, however, been contended that the prosecution has not given any evidence to prove that the appellant No. 1 is a "company" or a "firm" or may be said to be an "association of persons" and that in the absence of any such evidence the word "mill" should be given its ordinary dictionary meaning. It, however, appears that there is evidence on the record to show that the business of the concern in question is carried out in the name of Messrs Tara Oil and Ginning Mills. The appellant No. 1 engaged a chartered engineer to inspect the godown in premises 58/1/1, Strand Road and correspondence passed between them in this connection. See also Ext. C. So, appellants' contention in this respect must be rejected. 3. ON the day the Food Inspector visited the premises No. 58/1/1, Strand Road he took samples of oil from five different tanks inside the godown. All the samples were sent to the Public Analyst (P. W. 4 ). See also Ext. C. So, appellants' contention in this respect must be rejected. 3. ON the day the Food Inspector visited the premises No. 58/1/1, Strand Road he took samples of oil from five different tanks inside the godown. All the samples were sent to the Public Analyst (P. W. 4 ). He found mustard oil from four of the tanks not adulterated. He, however, reported the sample of oil which was collected from tank No. 1 adulterated, see Ext. 6. The results of this analysis are thus given in his report. 4. FROM the above he gave his opinion "that the sample of mustard oil does not conform to the standard in respect of saponification value due to the presence of ground nut oil and hence the sample is adulterated". According to the standard of quality laid down in Appendix B (A. 17. 06) to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, saponification value should vary between 168 to 176, The saponification value found by the Analyst, P. W. 4, in the sample sent to him was 177. 1. It has been contended from this that this variation with the prescribed standard is very slight and may be neglected. This contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. Besides, according to the evidence given by P. W. 4, saponification value and Bellier's turbidity temperature were higher than the prescribed limits and this indicated the presence of ground nut oil in the sample of mustard oil. This will also appear from Ext. 6 and P. W. 4 has explained in his evidence that he did not mention the Bellier's turbidity temperature in the concluding portion of his report, as he had already mentioned it in the body of the report. It appears that P. W. 4 in following Bellier's turbidity temperature test has followed Fryer and Weston. The learned Advocate for the appellants has criticised P. W. 4 for not following Woodman and William who are also admittedly authorities on oil analysis. But Fryer and Weston have given Ever's method (acetic acid) as mentioned in the standard laid down in A 17. 06 (Appendix B ). P. W. 4 has stated that he used acetic acid. No expert was examined on the defence side to show that the method followed by P. W. 4 in this respect was wrong. The letter (Ext. But Fryer and Weston have given Ever's method (acetic acid) as mentioned in the standard laid down in A 17. 06 (Appendix B ). P. W. 4 has stated that he used acetic acid. No expert was examined on the defence side to show that the method followed by P. W. 4 in this respect was wrong. The letter (Ext. D) written by the Agricultural Marketing Adviser to the Government of India stating the details of modified Bellier's tests to be followed, cannot be regarded as an authority on the point. 5. IT must, therefore, be held that the learned Presidency Magistrate rightly concluded that the sample of mustard oil sent to the Public Analyst by P. W. 1 was not according to the prescribed standard laid down in Appendix b (A 17. 06) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and was as such adulterated. 6. FROM evidence it appears that the gaddi and godown in premises No. 58/1/1, Strand Road are situated in the same building, the gaddi portion being in front separated from the godown portion by a sort of brick partition wall. All the tanks from which the samples of oil were taken, are situated inside the godown. These tanks are filled up with oil from an overhead pipe line (see also Exte, A and B ). Oils from the different tanks separately collected in a mug and then poured into different phials. Oil from tank No. 1 was first collected in the mug. It has been submitted on the appellants' side that as the tanks were interconnected by overhead pipe line and filled up with oil from the same pipe line and as oils from the other four tanks have been found to be not adulterated, there must have been some foreign substance, such as ground nut oil; in the mug when oil was first collected in it from the tank No. 1. P. W. 4 in his evidence has also stated that there might have been variation as reported by him if there was sufficient groundnut oil in the mug in which the oil from tank No. 1 was first collected. So, it was all the more incumbent on the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that the oil from tank No. 1 was collected in a clean and dry mug. But the evidence on this point is not satisfactory. So, it was all the more incumbent on the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that the oil from tank No. 1 was collected in a clean and dry mug. But the evidence on this point is not satisfactory. P.W. 2 Benarashilal and P. W. 3 Ram Abatar are the two search witnesses who were present when the samples were collected from the tanks by P. W. 1. P. W. 1 remained content by only saying that he observed all the legal formalities at the time of collection of the samples. P. W. 2 has stated that p. W. 1's chaprasi took the samples of oil in a mug and filled up phials and packed and sealed these phials and that during this time they were sitting in the gaddi by the side of the godown. We get from the evidence of D. W. 2 that the tanks stood on pillars and there were two taps attached to tank No. 1. He has also stated that because of the obstruction by the pillars the bottom tap was not visible from the gaddi. So, if the chaprashi of P. W. 1 collected oil from the bottom tap and if P. W. 1 was at the time sitting in the gaddi, as is the evidence of P. W. 2, he could not have seen the condition of the mug when the oil was thus being collected. The learned Magistrate seems to have relied on the evidence of P. W. 3 in holding that P. W. 1 himself collected the samples of oil, but the learned Magistrate was not correct when by referring to the evidence of P. W. 3 he said that the mug was in the hand of P. W. 1 and that the peon poured the oil from the mug in the phials. P. W. 3 has, on the other hand, stated that the mug was in the hand of P. W. 1's peon and phials were in the hand of P. i. The defence also examined one witness, D. W. 3, to say that he was present in the gaddi at the time and saw P. W. 1 seated in the gaddi when a person brought three phials full of oil from inside the godown. In the circumstances, the peon of P. W. 1 was a material witness to depose to this fact and he should have been examined by the prosecution. No explanation has been given for his non-examination. 7. IT cannot in the circumstances, be said that it has been proved beyond doubt that the samples were drawn in a manner excluding all possibilities of contamination from any other foreign matter. Evidence of the Food Inspector does not throw much light on the point as to how the samples were drawn from the tank or if the mug in which the oil was first collected had any foreign substance, such as ground nut oil, at the time. It cannot, therefore, be held with certainty that the report of the Analyst, P. W. 4, was based on samples correctly taken. The report cannot, therefore, be depended upon for arriving at a definite finding that the oil stored in the godown in question was adulterated. Therefore, the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt and must be acquitted. 8. THE Appeal is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentences passed against the accused appellants are set aside. Fines, if realized, shall be refunded. With regard to the revisional petition it is in the circumstances unnecessary to go into the questions raised on the petitioner's side as to the legality of the joint trial of the two cases and of the order for destruction being made by the Magistrate without the seized oil being produced in the court. 9. IN view of my above finding that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the sample of oil was adulterated, the order of destruction of the seized oil cannot be sustained and must be set aside. The Rule issued in this revisional petition is accordingly made absolute.