JUDGMENT B.N. Katju, J. - Nagar Mahapalika Varanasi through the Administrator has filed this appeal against the acquittal of Hira Lal under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Magistrate 1st Class, Varanasi by his judgment dated 19-8-1975 passed in Criminal Case No. 498. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12-6-1973 at about 11 A.M. Mohammad Yasin Khan Food Inspector Nagar Mahapalika Varanasi (P.W. 1) purchased 450 grams of Khari Haldi from the shop of Hira Lal respondent. No. A29/12 situate in Mohalla Baluabir in the city of Varanasi. The Haldi us divided in three equal parts and sealed in three bundles. One of the bundles was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and his report shows that it was coloured with lead chromate which is prohibited dye. The Haldi was thus adulterated. 3. The prosecution examined two witnesses to connect the respondent with the crime, namely, Mohammad Yasin Khan Food Inspector (P.W.l) and Jagai Beldar (P.W. 2). 4. The respondent pleaded not guilty and stated that he was selling Haldi which he had obtained from the market and that he himself had not coloured it. 5. Sri Ram (D.W. 1) was examined in defence. 6. The trial court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the respondent and acquitted him as mentioned earlier. 7. Mohammad Yasin Khan (P.W. 1) and Jagai Beldar (P.W. 2) supported the prosecution case as mentioned earlier. It was, however, admitted by Mohammad Yasin Khan (P W. 1) in his cross-examination at two places that (he Haldi that was being sold by the respondent was not meant for human consumption but for Pooja-path (worship) It was stated by Sri Ram (D.W. 1) that the shop of the respondent is a small one in which articles for human consumption are not sold but the articles meant for Pooja (worship) are only sold and that a small amount of Haldi is also kept in the shop of the respondent. The defence of the respondent that the Haldi that was purchased by Mohammad Yasin Khan (P.W. 1) was not meant for human consumption but was only for Pooja is, therefore, supported by the admissions of Mohammad Yasin Khan (P.W. 1) mentioned above. The defence of the respondent that the Haldi that was purchased by Mohammad Yasin Khan (P.W. 1) was not meant for human consumption but was only for Pooja is, therefore, supported by the admissions of Mohammad Yasin Khan (P.W. 1) mentioned above. In these circumstances the HM purchased by Mohammad Yasin Khan (P.W. 1) was not food as defined it Section 2(v) of the Act. The respondent was, therefore, rightly acquitted by the trial court under Section 7/16 of the Act. 8. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.