JUDGMENT H.N. Kapoor, J. - This revision is directed against the order and judgment dated 20-12-1973 of the First Civil and Sessions Judge, Etah, in Cr. Appeal No. 314 of 1973 confirming the order of the trial court by which the applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. The prosecution case is that on 28-5-1972 at about 10 a.m. the Food Inspector inspected the shop of the applicant. He was found selling Vanaspati Chetak Brand in sealed tins. The Food Inspector got the seal of one of the tins broken in his presence and purchased the required quantity of the same and f sealed them in three bottles. One of the bottles as sent to the public analyst was found to be adulterated as free fatty acids and melting point were higher than the prescribed maximum limits. The applicant was then prosecuted.-' His defence was that he had been supplied the tins by the manufacturers and he was selling them in the same state as had been received by him and that there was no menswear on his part. Both the courts below took the view that the person selling the articles is also liable and that no warranty given by the manufacturers had been produced in this case. 3. The revision was admitted on the question of sentence on 8-1-1974. Subsequently a decision of K.N. Seth, J. had been reported in the case of State of U.P. v. Nanak Chand and another 1974 FAC 413 . Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore has prayed that he may be allowed to argue the revision on merit and the same may be decided in terms of this reported decision. The request being reasonable, he was allowed to argue the revision on merit. 4. In the above cited decision, K. N. Seth, J. has taken the view that rule 22 (A) of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act contemplates that when the article is sold in sealed container, the sealed container bearing the same label should be treated as sample and the article be sent in the same condition to the public analyst and that non-compliance of this rule is an irregularity which goes to the very root. No doubt, in that case the manufacturer was also an accused and in the opinion of the learned Judge this rule was meant for safeguarding the interest of the manufacturer. In the present case, the manufacturer is not an accused person. But the fact remains that an irregularity has been committed by the Food Inspector. In such a case it is mainly the manufacturer who can be held liable for the offence although technically the person selling that article too may be made liable. The Food Inspector himself got the seal of the tin opened in his presence and this article was found adulterated. It should have been a different matter if the tin had been opened already and the accused was selling the article from the opened tin. In my opinion, under the circumstances of this case, non-compliance of rule 22(A) is fatal for the prosecution. The applicant is, therefore, entitled to an acquittal. 5. In the result the revision is allowed and the orders of the lower courts are set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him.