Judgment :- 1. These appeals are heard together as common questions of law arise in both the cases. 2. I will first deal with the facts in Crl. Appeal No. 176 of 1979. There the State has come up in appeal against the acquittal of the accused, who had been charged with offences under S.16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The charge framed against him is as follows: "That you on or about the 2nd day of March 1978 at 3-30 p.m. from out of your stock for sale in your grocery shop at Ariyanad sold to pw-1 Food Inspector 750 gms of Vadaparippu for a price of Rs. 2.25 and the same when sent for analysis and as per Ext. P6 report of the Public Analyst was found not conforming to standard prescribed under item A. 18.06 of App. B. to P.F.A. R.1955 and therefore adulterated U/S. 2(i-a) (m) of the P.F.A. Act 1954 as amended the sale of which is prohibited U/S.7 (1) of the same Act and thereby committed offence punishable U/S.16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 as amended by Act 34/1976 and within the cognizance of this court." In the other case there were two accused, the charge against them being: "That for on or about the 6th day of February 1978 at 11 a.m. Al as owner of Grocery shop in Perinjamala and A2 as his salesman from out of your stock for sale in the said shop A2 sold to Pw-1 Food Inspector 750 gms of Thuvaraparippu for a price of Rs. 3.37 and that the same when sent for analysis and as per Ext. P-6 Public Analyst's report was found not conforming to standard prescribed under item A. 18.06 of App. B. to P.F.A. R.1955 and therefore adulterated under S.2(i-a) (m) of P.F.A. Act 1954 as amended the sale of which is prohibited under S.7(1) of the same Act and thereby committed offence punishable under S.16(1)(a) (i) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 as amended by Act 34/ 76 and within the cognizance of this court." In both the cases the accused were acquitted and the State has come up in appeal I might first state that the first accused in C.C. No. 120 of 1978, from which Crl. A. No. 649 of 1979 arises, was found not to own the grocery shop and that he had not through his salesman sold the sample to the Food Inspector as alleged. The court below has stated that both the material witnesses have stated that the 1st accused is quite a stranger to them and they never saw 1st accused before filing the complaint in the court. The ownership of the alleged grocery shop with 1st accused is sought to be proved by the complainant only through the evidence of P.W. 2 the Executive Officer of the Peringamala Panchayat who swore that the Ist accused during the year 1977-78 was conducting a provision store in the Panchayat, for which he had got a P.F.A. licence from the Panchayat, Ext. P-9 in that case is the P F.A. licence register kept in the office of the Panchayat. That licence was issued to the first accused. In cross-examination the Panchayat Executive Officer would admit that the said licence was issued, when he was not the Executive Officer there. But the Ist accused would contend that even prior to the date of sampling, that is on 6-2-1978, he had stopped his business and the licence for the same shop during the year 1978-79 is seen issued in the name of another person, It is also contended on behalf of the 1st accused that he cannot be prosecuted even if he is the owner, in view of the fact that a copy of Ext. P-6 had not been forwarded to him. A very valuable right conferred under S.13 (2) has been denied to the 1st accused. Since S.13(2) is mandatory, the Court below said that the 1st accused cannot be said to have been proved guilty of the offence with which he is charged Though the acquittal of the 1st accused is challenged, nothing has been put forward before me to persuade me to take a different view. 3. There two questions arise in both the cases for consideration The learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Bhaskaran contended that the court below had taken a wrong view in coming to the conclusion that 'Vadapparippu' and Thu-varapparippu'are primary foods According to him, if once there is a dehusking of pluses or of cereals, they will cease to be primary food. 3. There two questions arise in both the cases for consideration The learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Bhaskaran contended that the court below had taken a wrong view in coming to the conclusion that 'Vadapparippu' and Thu-varapparippu'are primary foods According to him, if once there is a dehusking of pluses or of cereals, they will cease to be primary food. The court below had said on the basis of the proviso to S.2 (ia) of the Act which states that an article of food shall be deemed to be not adulterated, where the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present to quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, in either case, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, that Vadapparippu and Thuvarapparippu being primary food the accused can take advantage of this provision. Even if the covering of the seed have been removed, or the seed even splitted up, the pulses will not lose their character of primary food in its natural form There has been no mechanical process involved in processing them. They continue to be in their natural form. The only thing is that the covering had been removed. The shape and arrangement as it existed within the outer covering are still retained. Now in both cases it is admitted that the materials bad been properly kept clean and safe. If there were insects that would be only because of natural cause and beyond the control of human agency. 4. In considering this question one may take note of the definition of the word 'food.' Food as defined in the Act means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes-(a)any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of, human food, (b) any flavouring matter or condiments, and (c) any other article which the Central Government may having regard to its use, nature, substance or quality, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, as food for the purposes of the Act. 'Primary food' is defined in S.2 (xii-a) to mean any article of food, being a produce of agriculture or horticulture in its natural form. As Mr. 'Primary food' is defined in S.2 (xii-a) to mean any article of food, being a produce of agriculture or horticulture in its natural form. As Mr. N. Mohandas, learned counsel for the respondents, contends if the seed without its outer cover is food as defined and if it is a product of agriculture and if it still retains its natural form which it had within the covering.-which had been removed, it is primary food. For example, paddy as such will not be food as defined in the Act But after dehusking the rice that is obtained can certainly be considered to be primary food, because it retains its natural form, though the outer covering has been removed by dehusking and it is an article of food and a produce of agriculture. For the same reason Vadapanppu and Thuvaraparippu can be considered to be primary food. These pulses when its outer covering is removed will be articles of food as well as products of agriculture. There cannot be any dispute with regard to that. The only question that will arise is, it is in its natural form. According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary natural means, being in accordance with or determined by nature having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature. Conscise Oxford Dictionary gives the meaning of 'natural' as, normal, conformable to the ordinary course of nature existing in or by nature, not artificial. A new English Dictionary on Historical Principles edited by Sir James A. H. Murray gives the meaning of the word 'natural' as follows: "Natural (of substances or articles) not made, manufactured or obtained by artificial processes. Also sometimes applied to products in contrast to these requiring more elaborate preparation, Having the normal form, not disfigured or disguised in any way." 'Form' has as per the said Dictionary the meaning relevant in the present context alone is quoted "shape, arrangement of parts, visible aspects (esp. apart from colour) shape, of body - mode in which a thing exists or manifests itself." Therefore, removal of the cover cannot be said to make a different shaping or different arrangement of the parts making it different from its natural form. The natural form is still retained. In this view I agree with Mr. Mohandas in his contention that the lower court was correct in coming to the conclusion that the materials are primary food. 5. The natural form is still retained. In this view I agree with Mr. Mohandas in his contention that the lower court was correct in coming to the conclusion that the materials are primary food. 5. The question will arise whether the purity of the article had fallen below the prescribed standards, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency. This aspect has not been dealt with by the court below. The accused will have to prove that aspect of the matter. It cannot be taken for granted from the mere statement of pw.1, the Food Inspector, that they were kept clean and neat in the container, that the deterioration arose on account of natural cause beyond the control of human agency. The matter will have to go back to the learned Magistrate for consideration of that question. 6. The other question that arises is whether on account of the fact that the sample which was purchased on 2-3-1978 and about which the report of the Analyst is signed on 22-3-1978 (in Cr. A. 176/1979) and in the other case the purchase being on 6-2-1978 and the report of the Public Analyst is signed and issued on 25-2-1978, on account of the delay factor in the matter of analysing the food the accused could contend that there is every possibility of insects being present only below the normal content at the time of taking the sample and the causes of such damage at the time of analysis being due to the increase of the living insects present in the sample bottle, which had opportunity to multiply during this long period. The court below has said that a reasonable man can endorse the view expressed by the learned counsel for the defence in the absence of any evidence on the part of the prosecution to improbablise the plea by examining the Public Analyst as a witness of its own. This approach is not quite correct. The court below will have to summon the Public Analyst and examine him Unless there are material factors before the court on which it could be safely concluded that the deterioration on account of the insect infection was on account of the delay in getting the sample analysed, the court should not have accepted the accused's plea in this matter. The court below will have to summon the Public Analyst and examine him Unless there are material factors before the court on which it could be safely concluded that the deterioration on account of the insect infection was on account of the delay in getting the sample analysed, the court should not have accepted the accused's plea in this matter. On this matter also the court will have to examine the matter alter affording parties opportunity to adduce further evidence in the case. Both the cases will therefore go back to the learned Magistrate for consideration of the questions referred to above. I make it clear that the acquittal of the 1st accused in CC. 120 of 1978 will in any way stand confirmed for the reasons earlier given. The Criminal Appeals are disposed of as above.