JUDGMENT - J.M. GANDHI, J.:---The petitioner-original accused has preferred this revision application against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhir dated 24th May, 1976 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner as appellant in Appeal No. 58 of 1975 had been dismissed. This appeal was from the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Gevrai on 23rd July, 1975, convicting the petitioner-original accused under section 7(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,200/- in default to suffer further R.I. for three months. Mr. A.V. Savant appearing for the petitioner, submitted before me that though this is a criminal revision application, there is a patent error by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in coming to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of charge with which he was charged. He submitted that this error has arisen because of non-appreciation of evidence and not properly understanding the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act with the Rules framed thereunder. The facts are stated in detail in both the judgments and I need not repeat the same. Ex. 39 of the original record reads the charge against the accused as under :--- "That you on or about the 17-8-1973 at about 1-15 p.m. at Gevrai manufactured for sale and stored or sold food article Shahajire and misbranded food, on that day to the complainant thereby you accused has contravened the provisions of section 7(ii) of the Act punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and I hereby direct that you be tried by me for the said charge." In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by Mr. Savant and Mr. Deshmukh, the Public Prosecutor, it will be better to refer to some of the provisions of the said Act as well as the Rules framed under the said Act. The relevant provisions of the Act are Sections 2(i)(a), 2(ix)(a)(c) and (d). Secs. Savant and Mr. Deshmukh, the Public Prosecutor, it will be better to refer to some of the provisions of the said Act as well as the Rules framed under the said Act. The relevant provisions of the Act are Sections 2(i)(a), 2(ix)(a)(c) and (d). Secs. 2(i)(a) reads as under : "adulterated-an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated--- (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;" Section 2(ix) reads as follows : "misbranded-an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded--- (a) if it is an limitation of, or is substitute for, or resembles in a manner likely to deceive, another article of food under the name of which it is sold, and is not plainly and conspicuously labelled so as to indicate its true character; (b) ... ... ... ... ... (c) if it is sold by a name which belongs to another article of food; (d) if it is so coloured, flavoured or coated, powdered or polished that the fact that the article is damaged is concealed or if the article is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is;" Section 7 reads as follows : "No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute- (i) any adulterated food; (ii) any misbranded food; Section 16 as it originally stood at the relevant time reads as follows :--- "16. (1)--- If any person--- (a) Whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food--- (i) Which is adulterated or misbranded or the sale of which is prohibited by the Food (Health) authority in the interest of public health :--- ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... He shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to six years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees......................." The relevant Rules under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are under heading "Definition and standards of quality". Rule A.05 deals with Spices and Condiments. Rule A.05.01 deals with Caraway (Shiajira). It read :--- "A.05.01.-Caraway (Shiajira) whole means the dried seed of the plant Carum Carvi (L). Extraneous matter including foreign edible seeds, chaff, stem, straw, dust, dirt, stones and lumps of earth shall not exceed 5 per cent, by weight." "A.05.01.01-Caraway (Shiajira) powder means the powder obtained from the dried seeds of Carum Carvi (L). It may be in the form of small pieces of the seeds or in finely ground from." The rest is not material. A.05.09 :---Cumin (Safed Jeera) whole means the dried seeds of Cuminum cyminum (L.) The proportion of extraneous matter including dust, stones, lumps of earth, chaff, stem or straw shall not exceed 7.0 per cent, by weight. The proportion of edible seeds other than cumin seeds shall not exceed 5.0 per cent, be weight." "A.05.09.01-Cumin (Safed Jeera) powder means the powder obtained by grinding the dried seeds of Cuminum cyminum (L.) The powder shall conform to the following standards." The rest is not material. The Central Law Agency, Law Publishers have published the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act 37 of 1954) and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 with short notes. In this book, under the Definitions, and standards of quality, Appendix B while quoting Rule A.05.01-Caraway, in the bracket, there is written the word (Shiajira) and the rest of the definition is exactly as I have stated before. In Rule A.05.01.01. Caraway again in bracket (Shiajira) the rest of the definition is exactly what I have stated before. In A.05.09 Cumin (Safed Jeera) the rest of the definition is as given in the Government publication. In Rule A.05.09.01 Cumin (Safed Jeera) the rest of the definition is exactly the same as I have mentioned above. In Rule A.05.01.01. Caraway again in bracket (Shiajira) the rest of the definition is exactly what I have stated before. In A.05.09 Cumin (Safed Jeera) the rest of the definition is as given in the Government publication. In Rule A.05.09.01 Cumin (Safed Jeera) the rest of the definition is exactly the same as I have mentioned above. Thus it can be seen that in this book published in 1969 by the Central Law Agency, the equivalent of the word "caraway" has been put by the Publishers as Shiajira and of "cumin" as Safed Jeera." It is necessary to refer to this annotated publication because in both the lower courts it is an admitted fact that the Food Inspector, who had visited the shop of the petitioner along with the other food inspector and other Panchas had asked for Shiajira and what was sold by the accused was Shahjeera and this is proved by Ex. 24 which is a receipt for payment of Rs. 6.75 p, for Shahjeera, 450 Gms. Ex. 24 bears the name of Madhukarrao Sopanrao Patil, Food Inspector, Bandi and also bears the signature of panchas. It also bears the signature of the petitioner, original accused Bansilal Dulichand, Rathi. As mentioned above, the prosecution has charged the accused under Ex. 39 for misbranding the article and the case of the prosecution as read from the charge as well as from the nature of the evidence led was that the accused passed of cumin seeds instead of caraway. Thus the accused has sold something by the name which belongs to another article of food or sold something which is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is. Mr. Savant appearing for the petitioner submitted that this conviction is not legal. He stated that the sanction under section 20 has not been proved at all as required by the Indian Evidence Act and he relied upon (Khobraji Jairam Masmatkar v. Vijaysinghrao Narsinghrao Deshmukh)1, 74 Bom.L.R. 595. the Judgment of the Vimadlal, J. The second contention raised by Mr. Savant was that if it is the case of the prosecution that it was an article of food, which was sold, and not spices, then, under Rule 22, the Food Inspector had to take 200 Gms. of each packet under Item No. 23. the Judgment of the Vimadlal, J. The second contention raised by Mr. Savant was that if it is the case of the prosecution that it was an article of food, which was sold, and not spices, then, under Rule 22, the Food Inspector had to take 200 Gms. of each packet under Item No. 23. But, if it were purchased as species under Item No. 17, he can purchase three packets of 150 Gms. The third and the most important point raised by Mr. Savant is that in the facts of this case, it is not the case of any of the prosecution witnesses that the Food Inspector had asked for caraway and cumin seeds were given. He further submitted that both the Inspectors, the panchas and the petitioner accused had talked in Marathi and the receipt Ex. 24 was passed in Marathi and the word used therein as an article sold is "Shahjeera" and no where in any of the exhibits or in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is the case of the prosecution that caraway was intended to be purchased or was demanded from the petitioner the original accused Mr. Savant submitted that all the parties dealing with Marathi knowing people and the article asked for was in Marathi language and the prosecution has not proved that when Shahajeera was asked, what was asked for was caraway. Mr. Savant farther submitted that the words "caraway" and "cumin seeds" appearing in both the judgments of the lower Court as well as the Appellate Court, they are the words used by the learned Magistrate and the learned Judge. Mr. Savant further submitted that the most important witness of the prosecution is Food Inspector Patil, who had purchased the articles, has not in his evidence shown anything as to how the article asked for was misbranded article for something else. It is the case of prosecution that Shahjeera was asked for and Shiajira was sold. He further submitted that the other Food Inspector Joshi who had accompanied the Food Inspector Patil has in so many words admitted that the article sold by the petitioner was Shahjeera as known in the locality. Relying upon the admission on the part of the Food Inspector Joshi, Mr. Savant said that the prosecution cannot be sustained for misbranding the article because it cannot be covered either under section 2(ix)(c) or section 2(ix)(d). Relying upon the admission on the part of the Food Inspector Joshi, Mr. Savant said that the prosecution cannot be sustained for misbranding the article because it cannot be covered either under section 2(ix)(c) or section 2(ix)(d). It is not established that the article sold was sold by a name which belonged to another article of food nor has it been shown that the article sold was made to appear better or of greater value than it really is. Mr. Savant further submitted that neither under the Food Adulteration Act nor under the Rules, the expression "Shahjeera" has been used and it entirely depends upon the local people to name a particular article as Shahjeera or not a Shahajira and when the Food Inspector purchased something b expression Shaharjira and not caraway and the other Food Inspector accompanying him in so many words stated that what was sold was the article Shahjeera, known in the market, it cannot be said that there was any misbranding done by the accused. Mr. Savant further submitted that it is the case of the defence from the beginning that caraway is something of a very superior quality of spices and the difference in the price between the cumin seeds and the caraway is very large. He submitted that in the cross-examination of Eknath Maniklal Charkhal, (P.W. 3) one of the panchas examined by the prosecution, it was specifically put to him that there is a superior quality of Jira spices which was valued at Rs. 80/- per kg. whereas it is an admitted fact both by oral evidence as well as by documentary evidence that in this particular case, what was sold was at the price of Rs. 6.75 for 450 Gms. Which would be approximately Rs. 14 to Rs. 15 per kg. Mr. Savant further pointed out to me that the accused in his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in answer to the question, viz., "Do you want to say anything more" has answered as follows :--- "Complainant demanded caraway. I asked him what kind of caraway. Complainant demanded caraway of (Shahjira). I told that the caraway used in my house and complainant demanded that caraway only. I told that this caraway was not for sale. Complainant took that caraway. I gave receipt to complainant. That caraway is not spices and not for fray. Higher Shahajira was Rs. I asked him what kind of caraway. Complainant demanded caraway of (Shahjira). I told that the caraway used in my house and complainant demanded that caraway only. I told that this caraway was not for sale. Complainant took that caraway. I gave receipt to complainant. That caraway is not spices and not for fray. Higher Shahajira was Rs. 80/- per K.G. This Shiajira was 10 to 15 rupees per K.G. I do not know English. I produce judgment C.C. No. 347/73 copy of statement." In the Marathi-question-answer which is at Ex. 40, the last question appears on p. 12 and I find that there is no expression "caraway" or "cumin seed" appearing in the Marathi answer recorded by the learned Magistrate. The only expression used is Shahjeera or Shiajira. In the above circumstances, Mr. Savant submitted that the prosecution has not able to show that the original accused---the petitioner herein passed of any article for some other article or had made any article to appear better or consulter in value as required under section 2(ix)(c) or (d). He further submitted that if the prosecution wanted the higher quality species which are costing about Rs. 80/- to Rs. 90/- per Kg. which case had been put to the panch witness also, the Food Inspector would not have purchased 450 Gms. for Rs. 6.75 and the very fact that the petitioner-accused had charged only Rs. 6.75 for 450 Gms. that is about Rs. 15/- a kilo, he could not have any intention to pass of the articles as something different. Mr. Savant further submitted that the prosecution is not carried any further by the production of the report of the Public Analyst which is at Ex. 34. The certificate only states that the article sent for examination contained Jeera seeds 98% and straw, dust stones was 2 p.c. But the certificate further says that the Public Analyst was of the opinion that the sample was adulterated under section 2(ix)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The sample consisted of 98% of Jeera seeds. In the main part of the report, there is a refer to the Food Inspector, Food and Drug Administration, Bhir, having sent a sample of caraway (Shahajeera) for analysis. Thus, according to Mr. The sample consisted of 98% of Jeera seeds. In the main part of the report, there is a refer to the Food Inspector, Food and Drug Administration, Bhir, having sent a sample of caraway (Shahajeera) for analysis. Thus, according to Mr. Savant this report can be of no avail to the prosecution to establish misbranding, if both the purchaser and the vendor understood by Shahjeera as only the cumin seeds and not caraway. In support of his arguments, Mr. Savant pressed into effect the admission made by Food Inspector Joshi, who is unmistakable terms admitted that what was sold to Patil, Food Inspector, on the date of the incident was known as Shahjeera in the market and in the locality concerned. Mr. Savant further submitted that in the light of all these admissions by the prosecution witnesses and the specific defence taken up by the accused, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have gone to the extent of saying that what was demanded from the petitioner accused was highest quality of spices, viz., caraway and not cumin seeds. The prosecution cought to have shown that the article was made to appear better or of greater value than really it was. According to Mr. Savant it is not the case of the Food Inspector Patil that what was sold to him was available in the market at a lower price and that the accused had charged him higher value nor has it been shown by the prosecution that the article was made to appear better. So, neither section 2(ix)(c) nor section 2(ix)(d) come into operation at all and if the prosecution has failed to establish misbranding then the conviction under section 7(ii) of the Act read with section 16(1)(a)(i) cannot be said to have been established. Mr. Savant took me through the judgment of the Appellate Court especially dealing with this aspect of the case and read out the relevant portion of the judgment from para 10 onwards. He submitted that the petitioners Counsel before the Appellate Court had relied upon Molesworth Dictionary---Marathi into English where the word Shahajeera is equivalent to Arumnigrum. Mr. Mr. Savant took me through the judgment of the Appellate Court especially dealing with this aspect of the case and read out the relevant portion of the judgment from para 10 onwards. He submitted that the petitioners Counsel before the Appellate Court had relied upon Molesworth Dictionary---Marathi into English where the word Shahajeera is equivalent to Arumnigrum. Mr. Savant further submitted that it was pointed out to the Appellate Court and that it has been referred to in the judgment that the Central Law Agency Publication also for the word "caraway" used the word Shiajira and not Shahajeera and for the word "cumin" used the word "Shahajeera". However, nor relying upon this dictionary and these definitions given in Marathi into English by Molesworth the learned Sessions Judge relied upon the English Dictionary, English into Marathi by Virkar, where the word "caraway" is described as a plant with small fruit and in Marathi, it is stated : ^^vksok] vteksn] ftjs ;kaP;k tkrhps ,d /kkU;** Relying upon various exhibits, viz., Exhibits 24 and 27, where the word used is "Shahajeera", the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that "Thus it is clear from these documents that what was intended by the complainant while purchasing the article was caraway and what was intended by the accused while selling the article was also caraway." Referring to the admission made by the Food Inspector Joshi (P.W. 4), the learned Additional Sessions Judge said that cannot be relied upon as in the opinion it would mean that ordinary Jeera seeds were treated or known as Shahajeere in the locality and did not accept the argument of defence Counsel. Referring to the judgment of the lower Court, viz., the Judicial Magistrate, First Class again in para 10 page 38, dealing with the statement of the accused and the arguments advanced on the basis of the statement under section 342 observed that it was an after thought on the part of the accused to have come out with the story that Siyajira, a higher quality of spice was value at Rs. 80 to Rs. 90 per kg. The learned Judicial Magistrate further observed that the Counsel of the accused, has stated that though the accused has stated so in his statement under section 342, he did not ask this specific question to the complainant the Food Inspector, Patil. 80 to Rs. 90 per kg. The learned Judicial Magistrate further observed that the Counsel of the accused, has stated that though the accused has stated so in his statement under section 342, he did not ask this specific question to the complainant the Food Inspector, Patil. In his opinion, relying upon the publication of the Central Law Agency, where caraway is described as "Shiajira" is an attempt on the part of the accused to escape the responsibility though he fully knew that what he was selling was ordinary Jeera as caraway Shiajira. Against all the arguments of Mr. Savant, Mr. Deshmukh for the State submitted that this is a clear case of misbranding and he relied upon the definition of "misbranded" contained in section 2(ix)(a) over and above sections (c) and (d). He submitted that under section 2(ix)(a) if an article of food is an limitation or is a substitute for, or resembles in a manner likely to deceive, another article of food under the name of which it is sold, and is not plainly and conspicuously labelled so as to indicate its true character it would amount to misbranding. He submitted that what was asked by the Food Inspector was not ordinary Jira but Shahajeera, and what was sold was a substitute for caraway. According to him, section 2(ix)(c) comes into force even when the sale is in loose quantity and not in a packaged-cover with the label where the lable is meant for deceiving or for substituting one quality of food in place of another. He further submitted that the whole argument of Mr. Savant about Shahajeera and Shiajira is based on an annotation of Central Law Agency of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and not on the original publication viz., the Government Publication where neither Hindi nor Marathi word is given for "caraway" or "cumin." Referring to the Marathi dictionaries referred to by Mr. Savant and to which I have already referred, as having been discussed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mr. Deshmukh submitted that in Moleworth Dictionary, p. 784 the word "Shahajeera" is shown as equivalent to arum nigrum and the word "Jeera" is shown as "cumin seed" (P. 318 Molesworths Dictionary). He also referred to the definition of "Jeeru-Meeru" on the same page as equivalent to cumin seeds-black pepper. The word "jeera" is shown as equivalent to cumin seed. Deshmukh submitted that in Moleworth Dictionary, p. 784 the word "Shahajeera" is shown as equivalent to arum nigrum and the word "Jeera" is shown as "cumin seed" (P. 318 Molesworths Dictionary). He also referred to the definition of "Jeeru-Meeru" on the same page as equivalent to cumin seeds-black pepper. The word "jeera" is shown as equivalent to cumin seed. Referring to Marathi-English Shabdakosh (Dictionary) by Virkar, p. 418 "Shahajeere" is shown as equivalent to spices, arum nigrum and on p. 177 "jire" is shown as equivalent to cumin seeds. According to Mr. Deshmukh the definition of caraway in the Rules shows that it is dried seed of the plant carum carvi and the definition of cumin is "dried seeds of cuminum cyminum L." Mr. Deshmukh submitted that even if Marathi English-Shabdakosh is referred, Shahajeere has been described as "arum nigurm" and the Court should come to the conclusion that it is different from the ordinary "Jeera" and therefore it is equivalent to Carum carvail L. Mr. Deshmukh submitted further that the entire defence of the petitioner depends upon the Courts interpretation of the word "shahajeere". Relying upon the 20th Century English into Marathi Dictionary by Ranade, p. 277 "caraway or carum (n)" in Marathi is known as ^^vksok] ftjs ;kaP;k tkrhps /kkU;** "carum copticum" ^^vksok] vtoku] vteksnk** "Carum Carui" ^^ftjs** "Carum Nigrum"and therefore, the Court should not accept Marathi into English dictionary meanings but should accept as has been done by the lower Court that the word "Shahajeera" means not higher Siyajeera and therefore, when a Marathi Speaking man asked for Shahjeere, it must be taken as caraway. I see a fallacy in the argument of Mr. Deshmukh. If the Food Inspectors who are supposed to prosecute the people under the Food Adulteration Act, cannot explain to the Court in plain language and cannot make themselves so explicit to mean that they wanted something different from what was sold to them, to hold members of the public guilty on such evidence would be in my opinion, most undesirable factor, and more so, when I am given to understand that Food Inspector Joshi, who has in so many words admitted that the article sold on that day was known as Shahajeera and there was no question of passing off one article to substitute another one. Even after the accused having asked to (P.W. 3) viz., the panch witness that Siajira or spices used for Masala are costly, i.e. costing about Rs. 80/- to Rs. 90/- per Kg. and thereafter Joshi, the Food Inspector, after having been examined, the prosecution has not even chosen to show that what was passed off was of an inferior quality of Shahjeere as if it was of highest quality Shahjeere, by misbranding the article. I think, it would be a travesty of justice to convict the accused on the evidence of the Food Inspector who are supposed to know their duty much better having not deposed what is being argued. If the entire transaction has been done in Marathi language and if one of the Food Inspector admits that what was sold was Shahjeere as known in the local market, I do not think that the prosecution can stand under section 7(ii) or section 16(1)(a)(i) of the said Act. In my opinion, section 2(ix)(a) of the Act has no application whatsoever to the facts of this case. It is true that the food adulteration is rampant. It is equally true that the people are profiteering in articles in food, but that does not mean the Court, without having sufficient proof before it, can convict a man for an offence that has not been established by the prosecution evidence. If the prosecution evidence falls short of and if the defence suggestion is so specific and clear that if caraway or spices which are costlier i.e. Rs. 80/- To Rs. 90/- per kg. and on such a suggestion being made to one of the Prosecution witnesses and thereafter another Food Inspector was examined and if that Food Inspector admits that Shahjeera was sold which was known as Shahjeere, I do not think that the prosecution can be said to have proved the guilt of the accused at all. I have come to the conclusion that the arguments advanced by Mr. Savant are of substance and the attempts made on behalf of the State by Mr. Deshmukh of no substance whatsoever. I have come to the conclusion that the arguments advanced by Mr. Savant are of substance and the attempts made on behalf of the State by Mr. Deshmukh of no substance whatsoever. A mere pun on the word in not using the word by the Food Inspector, in my opinion, makes the prosecution case absolutely weak and more so when another Food Inspector in so many words admits that what was sold was know as Shahjeere and so the question of misbranding the article dose not at all arise. An attempt was made by Mr. Deshmukh by submitting that if the Court comes to the conclusion that there was no misbranding, at least the Court should hold that there was adulteration and as the prosecution was under section 7(ii) and section 16(1) (a)(i) of the said Act, on the strength of the report of the Public Analyst that the Shahjeere contained 98% of cumin seeds and 2 p.c. extraneous matter, the Court should come to the conclusion that there was adulteration in the sense that there was no caraway sold at all. I am unable to understand the arguments as advanced. Section 7(ii) of the said Act specifically refers to misbranding and the charge is for misbranding and not for adulteration. As a matter of fact, when one refers to the charge Ex. 29, the word "adulteration" which was typed there has been struck off. So, from the beginning to the end, the prosecution and the defence knew that the accused was charged only for misbranding under section 2(ix) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the said Act. In these circumstances, this attempt on the part of the Public Prosecutor at this stage, to convert the charge from misbranding into one of adulteration is not very much desirable for the purposes of this case. In the result both the judgments of the lower courts are liable to set aside. The conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Georai and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are set aside. The accused is acquitted. Fine if recovered, should be refunded to him. His Bail bond stands cancelled. Rule is made absolute. -----