JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The Petitioner stands convicted u/s 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter caned the Act) for storing in his shop for sale Motor Bason (pea powder) mixed with Khesari Powder, and he has been sentenced thereunder to undergo R.I. for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 101/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 10 days. 2. The relevant part of the prosecution case is that the Food Inspector (p.w. 1) took sample of 600 grams of Motor Bason for the purpose of analysis by purchasing the same from the Petitioner. The said sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who on examination found that the said sample contained starches of pea., Bengal Gram and Khesari. Accordingly in his report Ext. 4 he opined that the sample was adulterated. The other details of the prosecution case need not be narrated as they are not relevant in the context of the points raised in this revision. 3. The Petitioner, in defence, pleaded his ignorance about the adulterated nature of the Motor Bason seized from his shop. He specifically pleaded that he purchased the said Motor Bason from a wholesaler without knowing whether it was adulterated or not. It has also been suggested in cross-examination by the defence, to the Food Inspector, p.w. 1, that the accused did not keep the said motor Bason for sale for human consumption. 4. Mr. Mohapatra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has contended that there is nothing on record on which the Court can legally came to a finding that the Petitioner had stored the said Motor Bason for sale for human consumption and as such the Petitioner should not have been convicted of the aforesaid offence, as he has not offended the prohibitions contained in Notification No. 25561/H dated 28-12-1963 of the Government of Orissa. The aforesaid notification prohibits sale of Khesari gram or dal for human consumption. Accordingly, so long as it is not established that Khesari Gram/dal was sold for human consumption, the provisions of the said notification cannot be said to have been contravened. The on us always is on the prosecution to prove the above fact beyond reasonable doubt, and the Court cannot draw any presumption to the above effect merely because Khesari dal/gram was kept in a shop for sale along with other articles. The on us always is on the prosecution to prove the above fact beyond reasonable doubt, and the Court cannot draw any presumption to the above effect merely because Khesari dal/gram was kept in a shop for sale along with other articles. There is nothing in law on which any such presumption can be drawn in favour of the prosecution. In this connection the following observation in the decision of this Court reported in Bhagawandas Khandelwal v. State 1967 C.L.T. 830, may better be quoted here: The onus is on the prosecution to prove that the Khesari Dal kept in the shop of the Petitioner was for sale for human consumption. Prosecution has not adduced any such evidence. The defence plea that the Khesari Dal was kept for the consumption of the cattle cannot be discarded. Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and unless it is established that the Khesari Dal was kept in the shop for sale for human consumption, the offence is not brought home to the Petitioner. The Petitioner must accordingly be given benefit of doubt. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in criminal Revision No. 121/69 disposed of on 13th May, 1971. This was a case of storing for sale Motor Bason which was found to have contained starches of Khesari, just as in the present case. Therein Das, J. has observed: ...that where the law visits sale for human consumption with drastic punishment, the onus cannot be discharged by the prosecution merely on the basis of a presumption that the food article is kept along with other articles which are admittedly for sale. That apart, though no doubt the Government notification prohibits sale for human consumption, it is difficult to see how such a provision can be enforced unless the law casts some other obligation on the seller and the purchaser to guarantee that the Bale was not for human consumption but for other uses. But there is no such obligation anywhere under the provisions of the Act or the Rules to this effect. But there is no such obligation anywhere under the provisions of the Act or the Rules to this effect. In any view of the matter, therefore, the fact that a sale for human consumption as distinct from sale for other use has been partly specified in the Notification, that cannot bear upon the actual proof that is required under the law and the nature of the onus that the prosecution has to discharge. 6. In the present case, the evidence of p.w. 1 the Food Inspector is merely to the effect that he found that the accused had stored Motor Bason in his shop for the purpose of sale, and as he suspected the same to be adulterated, he purchased 600 Grams of the same and sent sample thereof to the Public Analyst for examination as required under the Law. There is nothing in his evidence or in the evidence of p.w. 2, the Disinfector of the local dispensary who went along with p.w. 1 to that shop, or in the evidence on record, either for the prosecution or the defence, from which it can be said that the said Motor Bason was stored in the shop of the Petitioner for Bale for human consumption. The trial Court in its judgment has committed an error of record by stating that p.ws. 1 and 2 specifically say that the Motor Bason in question was kept in the shop of the accused for sale for human consumption. Neither of these two witnesses nor any of the other two prosecution witnesses states anything to that effect. There is no evidence on record to show as to what other articles were kept for sale in the shop of the accused much less evidence to the effect that all the other articles in the shop were edible articles. It has been specifically suggested to the Food Inspector, P.w. 1, that the said Motor Bason was not meant for human consumption. In the aforesaid decision, Das. J. has accepted the defence plea to the effect that Motor Bason is fed to the ants as is the religious practice among the jains?. Considering all the above, the defence pleas that the said ?Bason? was not kept for sale for human consumption cannot be lightly brushed aside. 7. In the aforesaid decision, Das. J. has accepted the defence plea to the effect that Motor Bason is fed to the ants as is the religious practice among the jains?. Considering all the above, the defence pleas that the said ?Bason? was not kept for sale for human consumption cannot be lightly brushed aside. 7. The Specific allegation against the Petitioner is that the Motor Bason, which was stored in his shop for sale, contained Khesari powder, sale of which for human consumption has been prohibited by the above mentioned Government Notification, and as such he committed the offence punishable u/s 16(I)(a) of the Act. The Public Analyst, examined as Court Witness, has not stated that the Motor Bason, the sample of which was sent to him for examination, was anyway injurious to health. He has specifically stated that no standard is fixed in the Act for Motor Bason. 8. The prosecution, as seen above, has not at all been able to discharge its onus to prove that the Motor Bason, seized from the Petitioner?s shop, was stored in his shop for sale for human consumption. As such it cannot be said that he offended the prohibitions contained in the aforesaid Notification, so as to be punished u/s 16(1)(a) of the Act. 9. Taking into consideration all the above facts and the law as stated in the aforesaid two decisions, the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 16(1)(a) of the Act cannot stand. 10. In the result, therefore, the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 16(1)(a) of the Act and the sentence passed thereunder are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the same. He is hereby relieved of his bail bond. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the Petitioner. 11. The revision accordingly is allowed. Final Result : Allowed