JUDGMENT M.H. Beg, J. - This is an appeal by the State against an acquittal of the respondent Dina Nath from a charge under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It was alleged that the respondent was found selling some Hing, a sample of which was purchased by V. P. Sharma (P. W. 1), the Food Inspector of the Municipal Board of Hardwar, on 20-12-1962 at 12-30 p.m. The Food Inspector handed over Rs. 1-50 nP. as price of three Chataks of Hing and filled up one of the forms which he was carrying and in which the price of the commodity purchased was entered by the Food Inspector himself in his own handwriting. The signature of the respondent Dina Nath was obtained on this form by the Food Inspector. This signed form (Ex. 2) has been put forward as the receipt by the respondent in acknowledgement of the fact that he had sold genuine Hing to the Food Inspector. The Food Inspector only stated that he obtained a sample of "Hing" from the respondent for which he paid a sum of Rs. 1-50 nP. He also stated that this Hing was for sale. Nothing more was stated about the transaction. Similar was the evidence of Har Swarup (P. W. 2), a resident of the locality in which Dina Nath respondent kept his shop. 2. The respondent produced Narain Dass (D.W.1) and Bal Kishan (D.W.2), two shop keepers who have their shops nearby, to support his statement that he had sold only "Bandhani Hing" to the Food Inspector and not genuine Hing which is just referred to as "Hing" in the terminology adopted by the rules prescribing the standards of quality for various articles of food to be sold. The defence witnesses deposed that the fact that the Hing was "Bandhani" was specifically mentioned by the appellant to the Food Inspector at the time of the sale. 3. The definition given of "Hing" in the rules is: "the oleo-gum-resin obtained from the rhizome and root of Ferula alliacea, Ferula rubricaulis and other species of Ferula." The standard prescribed for it is as follows : "It shall contain no sand, gravel or other foreign mineral matter, colophony resin, galbonum resin, ammoniaccum resin or any other foreign resin. 3. The definition given of "Hing" in the rules is: "the oleo-gum-resin obtained from the rhizome and root of Ferula alliacea, Ferula rubricaulis and other species of Ferula." The standard prescribed for it is as follows : "It shall contain no sand, gravel or other foreign mineral matter, colophony resin, galbonum resin, ammoniaccum resin or any other foreign resin. The ash content shall not exceed 15 per cent of its weight; and the alcoholic extract (with 90 per cent, alcohol) shall be not less than 25 per cent." 4. In this very rule, the definition of "Bandhani Hing" is given as "composed of one or more varieties of asafoetida Irani and/or Pathani hing gum arabic and wheat and rice flour." The standard of purity and of constituents given is as follows: "It shall not contain sand, gravel or other foreign mineral matter, colophony resin galbonum resin ammoniaccum resin or any other foreign resin. The ash content shall not exceed 10 per cent, of its weight and the alcoholic extract (with 90 per cent alcohol) shall not be less than 10 per cent. Use of coaltar dyes or mineral pigment is prohibited." 5. The trying Magistrate accepted the defence version on the ground that the price charged was the current price for Bandhani Hing only and not that for genuine Hing. The Food Inspector V. P. Sharma (P. W. 1) as well as Har Swarup. (P. W. 2) stated that they , knew all about Hing as they used to consume Hing. But, the cross-examination of the Food Inspector indicated that he could not distinguish between Bandhani Hing and genuine Hing and that he did not know the difference in price. It has been argued in appeal that the version given by the Food Inspector ought to have been accepted as against the defence version. 6. I have been taken through the whole evidence in this case. I find that the Food Inspector is suspiciously silent about the substance he demanded from the respondent. He does not speak of any demand made by him at all. Nor does he speak of any representation made by the respondent about the kind of Hing, which was being sold. Reliance was placed mainly upon the form filled up by the Food Inspector indicating that "Hing" was purchased from the respondent. He does not speak of any demand made by him at all. Nor does he speak of any representation made by the respondent about the kind of Hing, which was being sold. Reliance was placed mainly upon the form filled up by the Food Inspector indicating that "Hing" was purchased from the respondent. This form, apart from being a document prepared by the Food Inspector himself, also does not mention anything about the nature or the quality of the substance or the standard represented to him by the seller. 7. The report of the Analyst (Ex. Ka. 6) has been relied upon by the prosecution to prove that the Hing thus purchased by the Food Inspector did not conform to the prescribed standard for genuine "Hing." The report, however, shows that the Hing did not fall below the standard prescribed for "Bandhani Hing". The report proves that the sample was 5.6. per cent deficient in alcoholic extract for which the prescribed minimum standard is 25 per cent in genuine "Hing." It also shows that the proportion of starch in the Hing was 45.5 per cent and that the starch was not an oleo gum resin. It is true that the report proves that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for genuine Hing, but it also shows that the standard prescribed for Bandhani Hing was satisfied. 8. In addition to the circumstance that the price charged was for Bandhani Hing, relied upon by the trying Magistrate, I find that the respondent had only to make a representation as to the quality or nature of the Hing which he was selling in order to escape even the suspicion that he was misrepresenting the nature of the Hing being sold. He should be deemed to know the consequences of misrepresentation to the Food Inspector. I, therefore, consider it inherently probable that he must have made the representation that he was selling Bandhani Hing only. He did not stand to gain anything at all by failing to make that representation. On the other hand, he became liable to prosecution if he had made the representation that it was genuine Hing. The crux of the case is the question: What kind of Hing was it represented to be? The prosecution witnesses do not state that the appellant made any representation. They did not even state what the Food Inspector had demanded. On the other hand, he became liable to prosecution if he had made the representation that it was genuine Hing. The crux of the case is the question: What kind of Hing was it represented to be? The prosecution witnesses do not state that the appellant made any representation. They did not even state what the Food Inspector had demanded. In so far as the price charged was any indication of representation it was the price of Bandhani Hing. 9. The offence alleged against the respondent was that he sold an "adulterated food," and, thereby, contravened Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The term "adulterated" is defined in Sec. 2(1) of the Act. This definition indicates that there are twelve categories of "adulterated food." In order that a "food" may be held to be "adulterated" it must fall under one of the twelve classifications. The learned Assistant Government Advocate, arguing for the State, tried to bring the case within the purview of Sec. 2(1) (1) of the Act which prescribes the following requirement of adulteration:- "(1) (1) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities which are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability"; His contention would have been quite correct if it was established that the Hing sold was actually sold as genuine Hing because, as indicated above, the Hing sold fell below the standard for genuine Hing but not that prescribed for Bandhani Hing. An examination of the various categories of the "adulterated food" defined in Sec. 2 of the Act shows that there are broadly two kinds of adulteration: firstly, where the constituent elements make the food obnoxious to human health or the existence of the particular composition of it itself makes the food "adulterated"; and, secondly, where the "adulteration" is constituted by the fact that the prescribed standard has not been observed in selling what purports to be a food of that standard or quality. In the second class of "adulteration" it becomes necessary for the prosecution to prove that some representation was made about the quality or standard of the food sold. By itself the food may be wholesome, or, at least, it is permissible, but, adulteration consists in the fact that it falls below the standard to which it is represented to conform. In the second class of "adulteration" it becomes necessary for the prosecution to prove that some representation was made about the quality or standard of the food sold. By itself the food may be wholesome, or, at least, it is permissible, but, adulteration consists in the fact that it falls below the standard to which it is represented to conform. Such a case falls within the purview of Sec. 2(1) (a) which reads as follows:- "2 (1) (a) if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be;" The further requirement of proving "prejudice" to the buyer seems to be there only to make it clear that it will not be an offence if the quality is above the prescribed standard. In such a case, the burden lies upon the prosecutor to prove the nature or quality of the substance "demanded by the purchaser" or the nature, substance or quality of it actually represented by the seller. In the absence of satisfactory proof of these elements, the prosecution case must fail when the food is not declared "adulterated" by itself under the rules, but the adulteration consists of merely failure to conform in one of the prescribed standards. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the Hing sold was represented to be genuine and not Bandhani Hing. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed.