S. 12-Adulteration of mustard oil- No rule having been framed for determination of adulteration-Whether conviction maintainable under the section.
It was contended that inasmuch as no rule as provided in section 12 has been framed for the purpose of determining the adulteration of mustard oil, the conviction in the absence of such rule being framed is not maintainable in law.
Held: Section 12 itself lays down a standard of purity of mustard oil and also makes it obligatory to fulfil such other conditions as may be prescribed. No rule having been framed, there will be no conditions except those provided for in this section. Therefore, absence of a rule does not make it impossible to determine adulteration or otherwise of the mustard oil. Chairman, District Council Vs. State (1963) 15 DLR 74.
S. 44 First offence and second of- fence-Similar offence committed earlier under a Bengal Act whether can be said to be a first offence and another offence committed under this Ordinance a second offence.
The accused was convicted on an earlier occasion under section 6(1) of Bengal Food Adulteration Act of 1919 for an offence which was similar to the offence under which he has been charged and convict- ed namely, adulteration of mustard oil, under section 44 of the present Ordinance.
Section 44 of Ordinance of 1959 provides that for a first offence of this description an accused per- son is liable to a lighter punishment while for the second or subsequent offence of the same kind with a more severe punishment.
The contention raised was that the accused in- this case is liable to a higher punishment for com- mitting a second or subsequent offence inasmuch as he was convicted for an offence of this kind on an earlier Adulteration Act of 1919.
Held: The opening words of section 44 of the Ordinance provide that contravention of provisions of this Ordinance will be considered fresh offence. Latter part of the section indicates that both the of- fences must be committed under this Ordinance therefore the offence Committed under this Act of 1919 cannot be deemed to be an offence under this Ordinance.
The words "offence of the same kind' appearing in the latter part of the section 44 refer to the kind of offence mentioned in the first part of the section. An offence committed under the East Pakistan Ordinance cannot be connected with an offence committed un- der the Bengal Act. Chairman District Council vs State (1963) 15 DLR 74.
