Judgment : The criminal appeal has been filed by the State represented by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondent-accused Rathinammal of an offence punishable under sections 16(1)(a)(i) read with sections 7 (i) and 2 (i-a) (a) and (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate of Erode in S.T.R. No. 429 of 1977. 2. The complaint in the above case was preferred by the Food Inspector of Anthiyur (P.W.1) alleging that at about 7-50 a.m. on 28th November, 1976, near door No. 35, in Burgur Road, Anthiyur, the respondent Rathinammal was in possession for sale and old to P.W.1 adulterated buffalo’s milk, which on analysis, was found to be deficient in solids-not-fat to the extent of 25% and the accused-respondent thereby committed an offence under the above sections of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. P.W.1 stopped the accused and served Exhibit P-1 form VI notice of intimation of his intention to take sample of milk and purchased 660 milli-litres of the said milk for Rs. 1.15 paise under receipt Exhibit P-2 in the presence of Kandaswamy (P.R. 2). P.W.1’s Maistry Chinnaswamy has not been called as a witness. P.W.1 divided the milk into three equal parts, poured into three clean, dry and empty bottles and added 16 drops of formalin to each of the bottles and thereafter corked, twined and wrapped them and gave one bottle to the accused under acknowledgment Exhibit P-3, retained one bottle M.O. 1 and sent another bottle to the Court. The bottle in which the sample had been taken was sent to the Food analyst who has subsequently reported that the sample was deficient in solids-not-fat to the extent of 25%. 3. On questioning about the circumstances appearing against her in the evidence, the accused stated that she was not taking the milk for sale and that even though she told P.W.1 that she was not having the milk for sale, he took some milk and gave money to her. 4. The accused examined her senior paternal uncle as D.W. 1 and he has deposed that at the relevant time, he was ailing and on the advice of the doctor, he was taking milk and on the date in question, he had asked the accused to bring three litres of milk. 4. The accused examined her senior paternal uncle as D.W. 1 and he has deposed that at the relevant time, he was ailing and on the advice of the doctor, he was taking milk and on the date in question, he had asked the accused to bring three litres of milk. He has denied that the accused was selling milk to him and has stated that she was giving the milk free of cost and she continued to do so even after the date on which P.W.1 had taken some milk from her. 5. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate found on the evidence that there was no measuring instrument with the accused when P.W.1 purchased 660 milli litres of milk from her for Rs 1.15 paise and he held that there was no sale of milk and that the milk was not intended for sale and in that view, he found the accused not guilty and acquitted her. 6. The learned Advocate for the Government relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Food Inspector, Calicut v. G. Gopalan1, and submitted that the sale of milk for sample amounts to sale within the definition of sale contained in section 2(xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In that decision, it has been observed more than once that a reference to the definition of ‘sale’ in the Act will show that sale of any article of food for analysis comes within that definition. 7. But in the present case, P.W.1 has not stated in his evidence that he purchased the milk for sample. The notice Exhibit P-1 states that the milk was taken for sample and not that it was purchased for sample. Even P.W.2 who has attested Exhibit P-1 has not stated in his evidence that P.W.1 wanted’ the accused to sell some milk for the purpose of sample or analysis. On the other hand, P.W.2 has stated that he does not know whether the accused was taking the milk for sale or for domestic consumption. P.W.1 would say that the accused is a licensed milk vendor, but no licence or any counterfoil of any licence has been produced to show that the accused is a milk vendor. On the other hand, P.W.2 has stated that he does not know whether the accused was taking the milk for sale or for domestic consumption. P.W.1 would say that the accused is a licensed milk vendor, but no licence or any counterfoil of any licence has been produced to show that the accused is a milk vendor. The observation of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate in paragraph 8 of the judgment that P.W.1 has admitted that the accused had no measuring instrument with her is not correct as P.W.1 has not made any such admission in his evidence. The evidence let in on the side of the prosecution does not establish that the accused purchased the milk for sample or analysis and that she sold it to P.W.1 voluntarily. The evidence does not establish that P.W.1 purchased the milk from the accused after making any representation, to her that he was doing so for the purpose of taking a sample or for analysis. Therefore, the sale as required by section 2(xiii) of the Act is not established by the facts of the present case. More over, section 13(2) of the Act lays down that on receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of articles of food was taken forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person informing such person that if it is so desired, that person may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. There is no evidence to show that the requirement of section 13(2) of the Act was satisfied in this case. This would be another reason to hold that the prosecution has not complied with the provisions of law and that the acquittal of the accused by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate is not unwarranted. No interference with the judgment of the Court below is called for. 8. The criminal appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.