Judgment.- This appeal is by the State against the acquittal of the accused in C.C.No. 257 of 1970 on the file of the Additional Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram on the charge under section 16 (1) and 7 read with section 2 (1) (a) and (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The case for the prosecution is that on 20th August, 1970 at about 7-30 a.m. P.W. 1 the Food Inspector attached to Vizianagaram Municipality found the accused in possession of four seers of cow’s milk for sale at Butchanna Tank Road and from her he purchased 3/4th seer of milk paying Rs. 0-75 and observing the necessary formalities, divided them into three portions, sealed them in three clean bottles and sent one to the Public Analyst and his report shows that the sample was 15 % deficient of the minimum amount of solids-not-fat and it is therefore adulterated. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined P.Ws. 1 to 3. 3. The accused on the other hand contended that she is running a tea stall and in this tea stall she had kept milk for preparation of tea and P.W. 1 took sample from this and there was no sale as such. In support of her contention, she had examined two witnesses. 4. The Court on a scrutiny of the evidence found discrepancies in the evidence let in for the prosecution and acquitted the accused of the charge. Hence this appeal by the State. 5. In the evidence of P.W. 1 he has sought to make out the possession of the accused of four seers of milk for purposes of sale at Butchanna Tank Road and from this he purchased 3/4th seer of milk for Rs. 0-75 nP. This has been disputed by the accused who said that she is running a tea stall and that the milk was kept there not for sale but for preparation of tea and from this P.W. 1 had taken the sample. P.W. 2 who is a witness for the panchanama drafted by P.W. 1 himself has also stated that it is from the tea stall of the accused that P.W. 1 had taken the sample of milk. That is the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 also. D.Ws. 1 and 2 further say that the accused does not sell the milk as such. That is the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 also. D.Ws. 1 and 2 further say that the accused does not sell the milk as such. Therefore there is no evidence in this case that from the accused’s possession on Butchanna Tank Road P.W. 1 had purchased the milk on payment of Rs. 0-75. It is unfortunate in this case that P.W. 1 should come forward with a false case that he did not take the sample from tea-stall. 6. It is now contended that the milk kept in the tea-stall was not either stored or exposed for purpose of sale and as such the taking of the sample therefrom by the Food Inspector, even though it may be on payment of a price, does not amount to sale. In support of this contention, the following decisions have been relied on: Public Prosecutor v. Arjuna Rao1, Rameshwara Das v. State2, Calicut Corporation v. C. Gopalan3 and A. Asgir v. State4. But the controversy however has been set at rest for the present by the decision of the Supreme Court in Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation v. Cherukattil Gopalan5, which is a case of a sample of sugar being purchased by the Food Inspector from a tea-stall, where the contention also was that the sugar was only meant for preparation of tea and not kept for sale as such. It is pointed out therein that in Mangaldas Raghviji Ruparel v. The State of Maharashtra6, it was held that the purchase of sugar from a tea stall by a Food Inspector amounts to sale within the provisions of section 2 (8) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and once it is a sale, the question that it was not stored or exposed for sale as such would not arise. They had also cited with approval the decision in Municipal Board Faizabad v. Lalchand Surajmal and another7. They had also cited with approval the decision in Municipal Board Faizabad v. Lalchand Surajmal and another7. That was also a case where sample of milk kept for preparing tea in a tea-stall was taken by the Food Inspector and it was found to be adulterated and it was held that though the accused could not be convicted for storing the milk which was found to be adulterated as the milk was not stored for sale as such, nevertheless, the accused did sell the milk to the Food Inspector and as the said sale was of adulterated milk, the accused had committed an offence. Another case cited with approval is State of Gujarat v. Asandas Kimmatrai Kevalramani1, where ‘Dahi’ (Curd) sample of which was purchased by the Food Inspector was found to be adulterated and the plea was that the ‘Dahi" was not meant for sale but for preparation of ‘Lachhi’ it was held that so long as there has been a sale as defined under the Act to the Food Inspector of Dahi and it was found adulterated, the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with section 7 of the Act. They stated that they further agree that the article of food which has been purchased by the Food Inspector need not have been taken out from a larger quantity intended for sale, that they also are of the opinion that the person from whom the article of food has been purchased by the Food Inspector need not be a dealer as such in that article and finally held that the taking of the sample by the Food Inspector of Sugar from a tea-stall amounted to sale and in as much as it was found to be adulterated, the accused has committed an offence. This judgment was followed in a subsequent case of the Supreme Court in Mohammed Tamirt v. State of U.P.2, where the sample of sugar taken by the Food Inspector was found to be adulterated and the plea of the asccused that he was not selling the sugar as such, that he had kept the sugar only for the preparation of RAB and therefore he was not storing the sugar or exposing for sale, the sugar out of which sample was taken by the Food Inspector, was held to be untenable. 7. 7. The judgment of the lower Court is therefore set aside and the accused is convicted of the offence under section 16 (1) read with section 7 and 2 (1) (a) and (1) of the Act. 8. Taking these circumstances into consideration, and the fact that the accused is a woman and is only running a petty tea-stall, she is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20 or in default to undergo Regorous Imprisonment for 20 days. 9. In the result the appeal is allowed.