Judgment This is an appeal by the State of Tamil Nadu against the order of acquittal of the respondent by the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai, acquitting him of an offence under Sections 2(1) (a)(m), 7(i)(v) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The prosecution case was that the Food Inspector, Madurai Corporation (P.W.1) went to the Oil Stores of the respondents on 9.4.1979 and purchased coconut oil under the receipt Ex.P-1 after serving the necessary notice, etc. P.W.1 observed the formalities and took samples of the coconut oil. He also obtained a statement from the 2nd accused who was transacting the business. Ex.P-4 is the mahazar. After preparing the report Ex.P-6, he sent one of the sample packets to the Public Analyst and it was found that the sample consisted of a mixture of about 80% of coconut oil and 20% of groundnut oil. Hence the charge. 3. The accused contended that they purchased the oil from a Co-operative Society at Nagercoil through a canvassing agent and, therefore, they are not liable for any prosecution. When the case came up for hearing, the 2nd accused requested the Court to send another sample to the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, for analysis. Accordingly, the Court sent for a sample from the Local Health Authority and transmitted the same to the Central Food Laboratory which gave the opinion Ext.C-1 to the effect that the sample does not conform to the standards laid down for coconut oil. 4. The trial Court found the firm (1st accused) and the partner (2nd accused) guilty under Sections 2(i)(a)(m), 7(i) (v) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, convicted them thereunder and sentenced the 1st accused-firm to pay a fine of Rs.500/-and sentenced the 2nd accused-partner to R.I. for 3 months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-and in default to undergo R.I. for one week. 5. The accused preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge at Madurai, and the conviction and sentence were set aside and the appeal was allowed. Therefore, the State has come up on appeal against the acquittal of the accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the evidence on record. 5. The accused preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge at Madurai, and the conviction and sentence were set aside and the appeal was allowed. Therefore, the State has come up on appeal against the acquittal of the accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the evidence on record. It is not disputed that the sample was duly taken by P.W.1 from the shop of the accused and on analysis, it was found to be adulterated with 20% of groundnut oil. In fact, the 2nd accused was not satisfied with the report of the Public Analyst, and therefore had the other sample sent by the Court to the Central Food Laboratory and Ex.C-1 is the report confirming the adulteration as found by the Public Analyst. Therefore, the adulteration cannot be disputed and it has been established beyond doubt. However, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal on two grounds. 7. Firstly, the learned Judge would state that the mahazar witness was not an independent witness and, therefore, Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not complied with. According to the learned Judge, independent witnesses unconnected with the trade in the article of food should have attested the seizure and that the mahazar witness for the recovery was not an independent witness. This is not a correct appreciation of Section 10(7) of the said Act, as it is only directory and not mandatory. Experience in Courts would tell us that it is difficult to find independent witnesses for seizure of adulterated food articles, and even if such witnesses are secured, they invariably turn hostile during trial. That apart, one Kathamuthu has attested the mahazar in the instant case. But he has not been examined. He is admittedly a retail dealer in oil who had come to the shop of the respondents to purchase goods. The learned Sessions Judge would say that he cannot be considered as an independent witness since he is engaged in the same calling or profession as the respondents. Just because the said Kathamuthu happened to be a retail oil dealer, he does not cease to be an independent witness. Further, it is not as if the Food Inspector (P.W.1) went about searching for Kathamuthu and brought him to be present at the time of taking the sample. Just because the said Kathamuthu happened to be a retail oil dealer, he does not cease to be an independent witness. Further, it is not as if the Food Inspector (P.W.1) went about searching for Kathamuthu and brought him to be present at the time of taking the sample. The presence of the witness was accidental and he has attested the mahazar. Therefore, there is no force in the contention that Section 10(7) of the Act has been violated. For one thing, Section 10(7) is not mandatory but only directory. For another, Kathamuthu is an independent witness in every sense of the term. 8. The next point taken by the lower Appellate Court for acquittal is that Rule 4(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, has been violated in this case. Rule 4(3) of the said Rules is in the following terms: “A copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the container and the cover shall be sent separately by registered post to the Directors.” The lower Appellate Court found that there is no evidence to show that the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal were sent to the Director. This is clearly a factual error. Page 25 of the file on the record of this case clearly contains Form II which is the Certificate of test or analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. The certificate clearly refers to the memorandum with the number sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. Further, this also clearly recites that the condition of the seal on the container was intact and unbroken. The recital is, “The seal fixed on the container tallied with the seal impression sent separately along with the memo”. The letter addressed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Central Food Laboratory is also on the file of this case. In this connection, it may incidentally be stated that the sending of this memorandum with the seal, etc. is the duty of the Court which has been requisitioned. The sending of the second sample is only on the request of the accused. In any event, the memorandum as well as the seal on the container were found to be intact and, therefore, there was full compliance of Rule 4 (3) of the Rules. 9. The result of my discussion is this. The sending of the second sample is only on the request of the accused. In any event, the memorandum as well as the seal on the container were found to be intact and, therefore, there was full compliance of Rule 4 (3) of the Rules. 9. The result of my discussion is this. The conclusion of the learned Appellate Judge that there is no sufficient compliance of Section 10(7) of the Act and Rule 4(3) of the Rules is erroneous. Consequently, the acquittal of the accused has to be and is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed, and the conviction of the accused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai is confirmed, but the sentence is modified, in that, each of the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. If the 2nd accused does not pay the fine amount, he will undergo R.I. for three months. Time for payment of fine two months.