The Calcutta Weekly Notes Monday July 5 1943

The accused replied that he had only fuel oil and the Sanitary Inspector purchaed a quantity of that article which was suplied from a cannister labelled “ Fuel oil.” On analysis the article was found to be compound of mustard oil and linseed oil the bulk of it being the former. [...] The argment on behalf of the accused was that he had not sold the oil as mustard oil or an article of food at all but as fuel oil; and that altelough the article contained mustard oil merely to sell an article which was not wholly mustard oil but contained a proportion of it was not an offence under the Act. [...] Therefore the ratio decidendi of the decision if any could be found in it was that leaving aside the general question as to whether sale of a compound containing any proportion of mustard oil would always be an offence there would at any rate be an offence if mustard oil consttuted the bulk of the compound. [...] But the basis of the decision is the prepondeance of mustard oil in the compound which' was the subject-matter of the charge in that case as also the potential edibility of that compound. [...] It would be manifestly improper for a practitioner fulfilling the two roles to advance money to a person for the purposes of the instittion of a suit as also for the purpose of cotitinuing a litigation.