Judgment : The petitioner who was convicted by the Courts, below under sections 7 (ii), 16(1)(a)(i) and 2(ix)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and who was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six month sand a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, has filed the above criminal revision case. 2. The facts of the case are that on 27th December, 1978, at about 9-00 a.m., P.W.1 the Food Inspector, purchased 600 grams of ‘Kesari powder’ after issuing a memo,. Exhibit P-1 to the petitioner. The bill for the sale of 600 grams of Kesari powder was issued by the petitioner to P.W.1 for Rs. 12 which is marked as Exhibit P-2. A statement, Exhibit P-4 was, also obtained by P.W.1 from the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner has sold ‘Kesari powder’. The Kesari powder purchased under Exhibit P-2 was sent to the Public Analyst and the Public Analyst has sent a report, Exhibit P-10. The Public Analyst opined that the sample tested by him contains a coal tar dye not permitted for use in any food. It is on the basis of this report sent by the Public Analyst, a case was filed against the petitioner after informing the petitioner the result of Public Analyst. 3. When the petitioner was questioned under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, with respect to the offence, he has stated as follows: 4. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court convicted the petitioner holding that the petitioner is liable under sections 7 (ii), 16 (1) (a)(i) and 2 (ix) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and also imposed a fine of Ps. 1,000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, C. A. No. 271 of 1979 was filed before the Sessions Court, Salem. The learned Sessions Judge, on a review of the evidence and also after hearing the arguments, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court, and dismissed the appeal. It is against this dismissal of the appeal, the above criminal revision case has been filed. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, on a review of the evidence and also after hearing the arguments, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court, and dismissed the appeal. It is against this dismissal of the appeal, the above criminal revision case has been filed. 5. The petitioner in his grounds of revision contends that the Courts below ought to have held that Exhibit P-2 cannot be relied upon and that Exhibits P-1, P-3 and P-4 have been obtained under coercion and threat and inducement and consequently, they should not have been considered at all by the Courts below. Inter alia in the grounds of revision, the petitioner contends that on the evidence adduced by the Food Inspector (P.W.1), there is no case of misbranding, because the wrapper on which the article was sold to P.W. 1 clearly contains the words ‘Non-edible, Synthetic coal tar dyes for Industrial purpose’. Apart from the grounds of revision the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends before me that the evidence adduced in this case, more particularly the evidence of P.W. 1, clearly shows that the petitioner has not sold "kesari powder" but has only sold a packet over which it has been boldly printed as ‘non-edible, Synthetic coal tar dyes for Industrial purpose" and under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be convicted and sentenced under sections 7 (ii), 16 (1) (a) (i) and 2 (ix) (i) of the said Act. 6. The facts in this case are very clear. P.W. 1 the Food Inspector, went to the shop of the petitioner and demanded "kesari powder" Cm 27th December, 1978, at about 9.00 a.m. The petitioner herein has given three packets, each packet weighing 200 grams, to P.W.1 under Exhibit P-2. Even on the packets, which are said to have been sold by the petitioner it has been clearly printed that they are not food articles but on the other hand "non-edible synthetic coal tar dyes for Industrial purpose". P.W.1, on seeing the packets, would not have arrested the petitioner or charge-sheeted him under the aforesaid sections, for, the "kesari powder" purchased by P.W.1 was not in loose form but was in a sealed packet over which it was boldly printed as stated above. P.W.1, on seeing the packets, would not have arrested the petitioner or charge-sheeted him under the aforesaid sections, for, the "kesari powder" purchased by P.W.1 was not in loose form but was in a sealed packet over which it was boldly printed as stated above. In any event, P.W.1 after purchasing 600 grams of kesari powder under Exhibit P-2, has also taken a statement from the petitioner that what he sold was kesari powder. But, when the petitioner was questioned by the Court under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, with reference to the statement, Exhibit P-4 given by the petitioner to P.W.1 the petitioner has stated that this statement was taken under coercion and threat. 7. The Counsel appearing for the petitioner-has also shown before me a similar packet which was sold by the petitioner to P.W. 1 which on a reading appears to be a packet containing "non-edible synthetic coal tar dyes for industrial purpose". In this regard, P.W.1 was questioned in cross-examination with reference to the purchase made by him from the petitioner. He has stated "Wrapper Food article This itself shows that if P.W. 1 has seen the packets, he would not have purchased, for, it has been boldly and specifically printed on the seal of packets as "non-edidle synthetic coal tar dyes for Industrial purpose" and not a article of Food. No doubt, when the contents of these packets purchased by P.W.1 were sent to the Public Analyst, the Public Analyst has sent a report, Exhibit P-10 wherein he has opined that the sample contains a coal-tar-dye not permitted for use in any food. 8. In order to charge a person under section 7 (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Central Act XXXVII of 1954) as a mended, it has to be shown by the prosecution that the article sold by the person in a misbranded food article. 8. In order to charge a person under section 7 (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Central Act XXXVII of 1954) as a mended, it has to be shown by the prosecution that the article sold by the person in a misbranded food article. ‘Misbranded’ has been defined under section 2(ix) of the Act as follows: "Misbranded"- An article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded- (a) if it is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, of resembles in a manner likely to deceive, another article of food under the name of which it is sold, and is not plainly and conspicuoulsy labelled so as to indicate its true character: (b) if it is falsely stated to be the produce of any place or country; (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, concealed or if the article is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is; (e) if false claims are made for it upon the label or otherwise; (f) if, when sold in packages which have been sealed or prepared by or at the instance of the manufacturer or producer and which bear his name and address, the contents of each package are not conspicuously and correctly stated on the outside thereof within the limits of variability prescribed under this Act. (g) if the package containing it or the label on the package bears any statement, design or device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which is false or misleading in any material particular; or if the package is otherwise deceptive with respect to is contents; (h) if the package containing it or the label on the package bears the name of a fictitious individual or company as manufacturer or producer of the article. (i) if it purports to be, or is represented as being, for special dietary uses, its label bears such information as may be prescribed concerning its vitamin, mineral, or other dietary properties in order sufficiently to inform its purchaser as to its value for such uses. (i) if it purports to be, or is represented as being, for special dietary uses, its label bears such information as may be prescribed concerning its vitamin, mineral, or other dietary properties in order sufficiently to inform its purchaser as to its value for such uses. (j) if it contains any article flavouring artificial colouring or chemical preservative, without a declaratory label stating, that fact, or in contravention of the requirements of this Act ox rules made there under; (k) if it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or rules made hereunder; "Misbranded" article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded if it is an imitation of, 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 censpicu-ously labelled so as to indicate its true character. It can also be said as a mis-branded article of food if it is falsely stated to be the product of any place or country and if it is sold by a name which belongs to another article of food and if false claims are made for it upon the label or otherwise or 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. On a close scrutiny of the definition of the word “misbranded” I do not find that the article sold by the petitioner to P.W. 1 can be said to be. one as ‘misbranded’ falling within section 7 (ii) of the Act. It is not denied by P.W.1, that he has purchased three packets, each packet weighing 200 grams of kesary powder. The article purchased was not in loose form, but as stated above it was in a sealed packet over which it has been specifically printed as “Non-edible Synthetic coal-tar-dyes for Industrial purpose.” P.W.1 has specifically admitted in his cross-examination that if he had read the wrapper, he would not have purchased the same as food article. The packets which were purchased by P.W. 1 were opened before the trial Court. Even on M.O.2 which is one of the packets purchased by P.W.1 it was clearly written as “Non-edible synthetic coal-tar-dyes for Industrial purpose”. The packets which were purchased by P.W. 1 were opened before the trial Court. Even on M.O.2 which is one of the packets purchased by P.W.1 it was clearly written as “Non-edible synthetic coal-tar-dyes for Industrial purpose”. Then, the question arises as to how under the circumstances, the petitioner has signed Exhibit P-4 statement given by him to P.W.1. may state that the petitioner, even in his statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, has stated that this statement, Exhibit P-4 was obtained by P.W.1 under threat and coercion. under the cricumstances, I am of the view that the article purchased by P.W.1 from the petitioner cannot be said to be ‘kesari powder’ or that it is a misbranded article coming within the definition of the word “misbranded” under section 2 (ix) of Central Act XXXVII of 1954 as amended. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited before me a judgment rendered by Paul, J., in C.A. No.848 of 1977, dated 29th September, 1978, and seeks refuge under this judgment. In that case, the petitioner was charged under sections 7 (ii) and 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with section 2 (ix) (k) of the Act and rule 45 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, on the ground that on 16th December, 1976, at about 1.30 p.m., the Food Inspector purchased three bottles of Honey Rex from the first respondent who is a retail merchant for Rs. 14.40 p. for the purpose of sampling and the price of the bottles was paid to the first accused and a cash receipt was obtained. The certificate issued by the Public Analyst in that case showed that the sample contained honey, glucose, sucrose and Vitamin A and the observation of the Public Analyst was that rule 45 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 requires that no person shall use the word ‘honey’ or any word that suggests honey on the label of any food that resembles honey, but is not pure honey. The defence put forward by the accused in that case was, that he sold the bottle only as Honey Rex and not as honey. The defence put forward by the accused in that case was, that he sold the bottle only as Honey Rex and not as honey. Paul, J., while construing section 7 (ii) of the rule 45 of the Rules framed there under, observed that; “On the labels on these bottles it is not the word ‘honey’ that has been used but the word ‘Honey Rex’ and further on the label itself it is definitely stated that it contains glucose, sucrose, vitamin A and honey. Therefore, merely because the word ‘honey’ forms a part of the tradename ‘Honey Rex’, which has been put on these bottles and when the contents of the bottles were not pure honey but were honey, sucrose, glucose and Vitamin A, it cannot be said to have been misbranded. The purchaser has been made aware of by making it clear on the label that he contents of the bottle are glucose, sucrose, vitamin A and honey and that the contents are not pure honey and no purchaser is likely to be deceived into purchasing Honey Rex under the impression that it is pure honey.” The learned Judge ultimately came to the conclusion that by manufacturing for sale or selling or storing these bottles of Honey Rex, the manufacturer of the storer or the distributor or seller or these bottles of Honey Rex would not be guilty of an offence punishable under sections 7(ii) and 26(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with section 2 (ix) (k) of the Act and rule 45 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. I am in complete agreement with the views expressed by Paul, J. In the instant case before me, the article that was purchased under Exhibit P-2 under the alleged name of ‘kesari powder’ is 60 grams if kesari powder which in fact is not the ‘kesari powder’. On the outer cover of the packet one could clearly find and it has been printed as“Non-edible Synthetic coal-tar-dyes for Industrial purpose”. Even P.W. 1 states that if he has read the printed matter on the outer cover, he would not have purchased the same as kesari powder, tinder the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to have sold a misbranded article to P.W.1. 11. Even P.W. 1 states that if he has read the printed matter on the outer cover, he would not have purchased the same as kesari powder, tinder the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to have sold a misbranded article to P.W.1. 11. However, the Courts below on this aspect have come to the conclusion that the petitioner sold ‘kesari Powder’ on demand by P.W.1 labelling “Non-edible, Synthetic coal tar dyes for industrial purposes and ‘Methanil Yellow’ and selling it for consumption of food for human beings necessarily denotes that it was kept as an article of human consumption branding it as an article intended for industrial purposes. I do not agree. The very fact that the packet which was sold by the petitioner to P.W. 1 where in it was written as ”Non-edible Synthetic coal-tar-dyes for Industrial purpose“ and ”Methanil Yellow,“ clearly shows that the article-sold was not food article, but that it was intended for industrial purposes. Tinder the circumstances, I am of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below cannot sustain. 12. That apart, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has cited a decision reported in Luxmi Chand v. Calcutta Municipality1 and contends that the facts of this case are similar and hence prays for acquittal of the petitioner. That was a case where the Food Inspector went to the oil shop of the accused therein and took 2/3 samples of coconut oil from him in the presence of witnesses after observing all the formalities. Such oil was stored there and exposed for sale for human consumption. The accused therein Wascharged under section 7, read with section 16 (1) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The defence in that case was that it was non-edible and perfumed oil, not meant for human consumption. A Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that”on the label of the tin it was clearly written “Circus Brand non-edible perfumed coconut oil.” The plea of the accused was that the sample taken from the tin was not meant for human consumption since it was perfumed non-edible oil. A Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that”on the label of the tin it was clearly written “Circus Brand non-edible perfumed coconut oil.” The plea of the accused was that the sample taken from the tin was not meant for human consumption since it was perfumed non-edible oil. On the facts of the case, the Court held that the oil taken from the tin over which it was found printed on the label, was non-edible and perfumed coconut oil, and so it cannot be held that the oil taken and stored was for human consumption. 13. In the instant case before me, I may state that the packets were purchased by P.W.1 over which it was printed as “Non-edible Synthetic coal-tar-dyes for Industrial purpose” and P.W.1 frankly conceded in his evidence that if he had seen this matter over the packets purchased by him, he would not have purchased it as “kesari powder”. That apart, the petitioner, at the earliest point of time, has contended in his statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, that Exhibit P-4 was taken from him under threat. Under the circumstances, on going through the judgments of the Courts below, I am of the view that the petitioner, cannot be charged under section 7 of the Act for selling misbranded article. In view of the above facts, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below are set aside and this criminal revision case is allowed. If the petitioner has paid the fine amount, the same will be refunded to him. Revision petition allowed.