Judgment : The State is aggrieved by the order of discharge passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli in C.C. No. 131 of 1978, and has therefore, preferred this revision against the accused. The complaint was filed by the Food Inspector, Tirunelveli Municipality, against the four accused| respondents for an offence under sections 7(1), 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 2(i-a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The case against the accused is as follows: 2. A-1 is the salesman of the grocery shop, M/s. Nainar Moopanar Sons, No. 1, Kazhuvetri Mudukku Street, Tirunelveli A. 2 to A-4 are the partners. On 24th February, 1978, at about 4-45 p.m., P.W. 1, the Food Inspector, who is the complainant, purchased 750 gms of gingelly seeds from the shop of the respondents for purposes of analysis for Rs. 4.65. After satisfying the formalities required by law regarding the purchase and packing of the sample, P.W. 1 sent one bottle to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst in his report, Exhibit P-5 opined that the sample is unfit for human consumption since the oil derived from the sample is found to contain free fatty acids in excess of the maximum permitted limit to the extent of 81%. On the basis of the report, a complaint was filed against the accused and section 13 (2) notice was served upon them. 3. When the accused were examined, they denied the offence, though they admitted that they are the partners of the firm. The lower Court discharged the accused on the main ground that the gingelly seeds seized from the shop of the accused is a primary food and the prosecution has not proved that the adulteration was within the control of human agency. This finding of the lower Court is now challenged by the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The point to be considered in this case is whether the action of the Public Analyst in converting the gingelly seeds into oil before analysing it is correct. The sample of gingelly seeds taken by P.W. 1 was sent to the Analyst for analysis purposes. The analyst should not have converted the gingelly seeds into oil and applied the standards prescribed for gingelly oil and given a finding that it is adulterated. The sample of gingelly seeds taken by P.W. 1 was sent to the Analyst for analysis purposes. The analyst should not have converted the gingelly seeds into oil and applied the standards prescribed for gingelly oil and given a finding that it is adulterated. In this context it is relevant to note that section 2 (i) defines “adulterant” as any material which is or could be employed for the purposes of adulteration. There is a proviso to that section which reads as under: “Provided that, where the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, in either case, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, then such article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this sub-clause.” Section 2 (xii-a) defines “primary food” as meaning any article of food, being a produce of agriculture or horticulture in its natural form. 5. It cannot be; denied that gingelly seed is a primary food. If it contravenes the provision of section 2 (1-a), then gingelly seeds as such should be said to be adulterated. But in this case what the Analyst has done is, he has converted the gingelly seeds into oil and then applied the standards prescribed for gingelly oil. 6. Rule 7 (2) states that the public analyst shall cause to be analysed such samples of articles of food as may be sent to him by Food Inspector or by any other person under the Act. Hence, if gingelly seeds are sent for analysis, it is the duty of the Analyst to analyse the sample of gingelly seeds sent to him and he should not have converted the same into oil and then analysed. This action of the Analyst is against he spirit of rule 7 (2). If the sample received by the Analyst as such is not subjected to the test, it may lead to anomalies. This action of the Analyst is against he spirit of rule 7 (2). If the sample received by the Analyst as such is not subjected to the test, it may lead to anomalies. For instance, if butter is seized and sent for analysis and the Analyst converts it into ghee and then applies the standards prescribed for ghee and finds the sample to be adulterated, the accused will be at a loss, if he has to exercise his rights, on receipt of section 13(2) notice because the sample available with the Local Health Authority would be only butter and not ghee. This kind of illustration could be multiplied. 7. Inasmuch as the Analyst has not followed the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under, the order of discharge of the lower Court should stand. 8. I see no reason to interfere with this order and the revision case filed by the State is dismissed.