JUDGMENT - G.S. GANDHI, J.:---This is an appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Parbhani on 8-8-1974 acquitting the accused under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. There is no dispute about the facts and procedure followed by the Food Inspector in this case. On the contrary the accused having admitted that he had sold 600 grams of chilly powder on the date in question; he has mixed in that preservative Class I, viz; common salt to preserve the chilli powder and it is the case of the accused that he has not committed any offence or has added anything to chilli powder so as make to injurious to health or to those who consume the same or has done anything in contravention of the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act. Mr. Solkar pointed out to me the report of the Public Analyst on p. 18 of the paper book, wherein it has been stated that the sample is adulterated under section 2(i)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ; that the percentage of total ash and ash insoluble dil. Hel, is more than permissible limits and that the sample contained 11.5% of common salt which is an extraneous matter. The prosecution was based on the report of the Public Analyst and on the strength of this report, a complaint was lodged after obtaining sanction to prosecute the accuse under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(i) of the said Act. Mr. Solkar submitted that there is an error apparent on the part of the learned Magistrate in acquitting the accused by merely finding that the sample contained 11.5% of the common salt which has been described as an extraneous matter, or preservative of Class I and there was no limit prescribed for the addition of preservative of Class I. He submitted that the learned Magistrate has ignored the fact that the excess percentage of total ash insoluble in dil. Hel. in the sample, which was found to be in excess of what is provided in Appendix B.A.05.01 referring to chilli powder, where it is stated that the chilli powder shall conform to the following standards : Moisture---Not more than 12.05 p.c., by weight. Total ash---No more than 8.09 p.c., by weight. Hel. in the sample, which was found to be in excess of what is provided in Appendix B.A.05.01 referring to chilli powder, where it is stated that the chilli powder shall conform to the following standards : Moisture---Not more than 12.05 p.c., by weight. Total ash---No more than 8.09 p.c., by weight. Ash insoluble in dilute Hel---Not more than 0.5 p.c., by weight. Non-Volatile other extrat---Not less than 12.0 p.c., by weight. Crud-fibre---Not more than 30.0 p.c. weight. He submitted if one were to read the Public Analyst Report, it will clearly show that the total ash percentage found was 22.5 p.c., ash insoluble in dil. Hcl., was 3.00%, Moisture was 5.60%, Non-volatile other extract was 14.50% and crude fibre was 18.5%. Extraneous matter common salt was 11.5%. He submitted that if one were to read App. B.A.05.01 chilli powders standard required under rules, the percentage of total ash found clearly shows that it was in excess than what was permitted under this rule. Against this argument of Mr. Solkar, Mr. Kanade for the accused has drawn my attention to the cross-examination of the complainant on p. 11 wherein the complainant has in so many words admitted as follows : It is true that sugar and common salt are the preservatives falling under Class I. I cant tell whether common salt or sugar if mixed with any article of food would cause injury to health. These preservatives can be added without contravening any provisions of law. According to the complaint (Ex. 1), after referring to the Public Analyst report, the complainant has relied upon his report and filed a complaint for an offence of adulteration under section 2(i)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Section 2 is a defining section. The word adulterated is defined in section 2(i)(c) as under : (i) adulterated---an article of food shall be deemed be adulterated--- (c) If any inferior or cheaper substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article so as to affect, injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof. Mr. Kanade submitted that if one to read the complaint and the Public Analysts Report the whole stress has been laid on the finding an extraneous matter, i.e. finding of 11.5% common salt. Under Rule 53 there is no limit put on the preservative Class I, namely, common salt. Mr. Kanade submitted that if one to read the complaint and the Public Analysts Report the whole stress has been laid on the finding an extraneous matter, i.e. finding of 11.5% common salt. Under Rule 53 there is no limit put on the preservative Class I, namely, common salt. The accused had without hesitation admitted that he had put the common salt as preservative to preserve the chilli powder. There is no error on his part but if at all there is an error it is on the part of the prosecution because the Food Inspector has admitted that he was not in a position to say whether the article found injurious as required under section 2(i)(c). On the contrary, he said that the preservative viz., common salt can be added without any limit. He drew my attention to p. 27 of the paper book, where the learned Magistrate has given his reasoning for acquitting him with the following observations : The excess percentage of total ash and ash insoluble in did. Hcl in the sample may due to the addition of salt in it and prosecution has not sought to clarify that position by examining the concerned Public Analyst. He also drew my attention to the observation in the judgment that it well be too much to say that addition of the common salt as a preservation in the chilli powder amounts to the substitution of an inferior or cheaper substance within the meaning of section 2(i)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He submitted that in the absence of any cogent evidence showing that any of the provisions of the said Act were violated by the accused, the learned Magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused. I have carefully gone through the submissions made by Mr. Solkar, but I do not think while sitting in appeal, without any evidence having been led by the prosecution to show that what was added was injurious or was a substance which was cheaper of inferior. It cannot be said section 2(i)(c) has been violated. Merely quoting the section and without leading any evidence whatsoever saying that there has been a contravention of the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, cannot establish the guilt of the accused. I see considerable force in the submissions made by Mr. It cannot be said section 2(i)(c) has been violated. Merely quoting the section and without leading any evidence whatsoever saying that there has been a contravention of the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, cannot establish the guilt of the accused. I see considerable force in the submissions made by Mr. Kanade for the accused that if any fault lies, it lies at the door of the prosecution and not at any other place. The learned Magistrate was not satisfied with the evidence of the prosecution and if the prosecution has failed to establish the necessary ingredients required to be established for the offence, the learned Magistrate had no other alternative but to acquit the accused. I see considerable force in his arguments and I have to reject the arguments of Mr. Solkar. In the result, the State appeal fails and is dismissed; the order of acquittal of the accused is confirmed and his bail bond stands cancelled. -----