JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant was prosecuted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. According to the prosecution case on 18th February, 1979 the Food Inspector collected a sample of rape-seed oil from the shop of the applicant in accordance with law. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported that it was adulterated and was not in accordance with the standard prescribed for mustard oil. A written consent for initiating the prosecution was obtained from the concerned Chief Medical Officer and thereafter the prosecution was launched. 3. The prosecution examined Food Inspector before the trial court. The applicant also examined in defence two witnesses. The trial court found the applicant guilty and convicted him under section 7/16 of the Act, and sentenced him to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Feeling aggrieved the applicant preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed. 4. In the present revision the counsel for the applicant has urged that there was no evidence to prove that the rape-seed oil in question was meant for human consumption. It has been urged that the rape-seed oil was imported by the Government of India from foreign countries and it was the same rape seed oil which was being kept for burning purposes at the applicant's shop. Reliance has been placed on a case of this Court reported in Gyan Chand v. State, 1980 (II) FAC 260. In the aforesaid case it has been held. "The above being the state of evidence, there is no escape from the conclusion that there was no material on record warranting a conclusion to the effect that the oil out of which the sample was collected was meant for human consumption. It is a matter of common knowledge that a grocer keeps edible as well as nonedible articles at his shop. The mere fact that there was some edible articles at the shop could not form a sufficient basis for the conclusion that the mustard oil, out of which the sample was collected, was meant for human consumption. Needless to say that it was for the prosecution to prove that the article out of which the sample was collected was meant for human consumption as already stated, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden in that respect. Needless to say that it was for the prosecution to prove that the article out of which the sample was collected was meant for human consumption as already stated, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden in that respect. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial court that the mustard oil, out of which the sample was collected was meant for human consumption cannot be maintained." 5. In the present case I have carefully gone through the statement of the Food Inspector. He has stated that the applicant was selling in his Purchun shop along with other articles rape-seed oil also. In his cross-examination he has admitted that rape-seed oil has been imported and he was unable to state as to whether the rape seed oil which was being sold by the applicant was imported oil or mustard oil made in India. The witness was asked in the cross examination whether he knows that rape seed oil was also used for burning purposes, making soap and also used in machines. The witness in his cross examination admitted that the accused had a very small shop of Parchun and the witness could not even tell as to whether on the shop a lantern was burnt or earthen lamp. In the present case the Government Counsel pressed before me the standard which has been prescribed for the imported rape seed oil and from the comparison of the standard prescribed for the imported rape seed oil it was clear that the sample was in accordance with that standard, notified by the Central Government. However, the aforesaid prescription of the standard by the Central Government cannot be taken into account as the same has not amended the standard prescribed under the Act for the mustard and rape seed oil. From the evidence, however, it becomes highly doubtful as to whether the applicant had at all adulterated the rape seed oil which he was selling, as from the testimony of the Food Inspector it was established that in the market imported rape seed oil was also being sold. The rape seed oil, as observed above, which was being sold by the applicant, conformed to the standard notified by the Central Government for the imported rape seed oil. As has been held in the case of Gyan Chand (supra) mustard oil can also be sold for burning purposes as a non-edible article. The rape seed oil, as observed above, which was being sold by the applicant, conformed to the standard notified by the Central Government for the imported rape seed oil. As has been held in the case of Gyan Chand (supra) mustard oil can also be sold for burning purposes as a non-edible article. From the evidence which has been led by the prosecution, it has not at all been established that the rape seed oil which was being sold by the applicant was meant for human consumption. The conviction of the applicant under section 7/16 of the Act is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 6. For the reasons stated above the present revision succeeds and is allowed. The convection of the applicant under section 7/16 of the Act and the sentences awarded thereunder are set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the charge. The applicant is on bail. He shall not surrender. His bail-bonds are discharged.