Judgment :- 1. This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of acquittal in S.T. Case No.51 of 1983 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Kozhikode filed under S.378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Two accused were proceeded against for offences punishable under S.16(1) (a) (i) read with S.2(ix) (c) and S.7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for having sold cotton seed oil as if it is palm oil. 3. First accused is the owner of the shop and actually he is the person in charge of the shop also. Second accused is an young boy who is admittedly the younger brother of the first accused. It is is also not disputed by the petitioner (PWl complainant) that at the time when he purchased the sample from the second accused. the second accused was only in temporary charge of the shop during the interval when the first accused had gone home for meals. It is rather admitted that even when the petitioner was preparing the sample and before the arrival of the first accused. he was told by the second accused that he does not know anything about the business in the shop. The defence suggestion is that when the petitioner asked for Palm Oil the second accused. who could not distinguish between various types of oils kept in shop. gave Cotton Seed Oil mistaking it to be Palm Oil. 4. What is seen from Ext.P8 report of the public analyst is that the sample consisted wholly of cotton seed oil pure and simple. That means it is not a mixture and if it was actually sold as if it is cotton seed oil itself there is no question of any offence having been committed. The defence version is probabilised not only by the facts mentioned above and undisputed by the petitioner. It was also admitted by him as P.W.1. that when he stepped out of the shop after taking the sample the first accused arrived there after meals and immediately informed him that actually by mistake the second accused sold him cotton seed oil thinking it to be palm oil. On the same day the first accused sent a letter also to the petitioner (P.W.1) to this effect It is Ext. D2. Same facts were mentioned in Ext. On the same day the first accused sent a letter also to the petitioner (P.W.1) to this effect It is Ext. D2. Same facts were mentioned in Ext. Dl letter sent to him by the Calicut City Retail Merchants' Association the next day. Admittedly P.W.I forwarded these letters to the Public Analyst along with Ext. D3 forwarding letter stating that if the rules and procedure permit. he would sent a revised memorandum. 5. The above facts disclose that any ordinary man of common sense and prudence placed in the above circumstances would have definitely gone under the impression that the defence version is correct. In fact the conduct of the petitioner (P.W.1 Food Inspector) also indicates that he also believed it to be so. But still what he has chosen to do after getting Ext. P8 report was to file the complaint. Evidently in filing the complaint he must have been hyper technical and acting against his own conscience. It is true that offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act do not require mens rea. But the well established principle of criminal jurisprudence that even if thousand culprits escape punishment. one innocent man should not be convicted. is applicable in such cases also. While discharging his official duty as Food Inspector. the petitioner had atleast the moral. if not legal. duty. to avoid his own prick of conscience. if any. by refusing to file a complaint against persons. whom he believed to be innocent. From his own admission it is clear that palm oil and cotton seed oil could not be distinguished by their appearance alone. 6. Considering these facts and the subsequent conduct of the accused coupled with the tender and immature age. inexperience and the temporary charge held by the second accused. the petitioner ought to have avoided filing the complaint. Object of the penal provisions and the provisions for approaching courts are for the purpose of bringing offenders to justice. Courts should not be approached with any other motive. if not on account of sense of justice. at least fearing an allegation that the court is approached without reasonable and probable cause or actuated by malice. Knowing or reasonably believing, on the basis of sufficient facts and circumstances. that the accused are innocent. it is not sense of justice or honest discharge of official or personal duty to drag them to court by implicating in offences. at least fearing an allegation that the court is approached without reasonable and probable cause or actuated by malice. Knowing or reasonably believing, on the basis of sufficient facts and circumstances. that the accused are innocent. it is not sense of justice or honest discharge of official or personal duty to drag them to court by implicating in offences. Anyhow they were prosecuted. Atleast after they were acquitted for reasons appealing to law. common sense and sense of justice. wisdom ought to have prevailed upon the petitioner not to file the special leave petition for appeal. He ought to have realised that it is harassment without any justification at all. 7. It is true that first accused is having the license to deal in food items and he is running the shop. It is also true that it is immaterial who was actually in charge of sales. But enforcement of the provisions should not be in such a way as to cause contempt in the eyes of the public. Adulteration in food is undoubtedly an antisocial act affecting life and health of the public and it has to be faced with iron hand. It is a pity that serious food adulteration offences involving big manufacturers and dealers seldom strike the authorities responsible for enforcing the provisions and even when they are booked easy short cuts are made available to them. Moral indignation and sense of justice of the authorities often turn only against petty dealers and in my opinion this special leave petition is a typical example of such an instance. 8. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the contention that the second accused was in temporary charge of the shop with instructions from the first accused not to transact business is not correct and that when there is no case that any pressure or threat has been used by the Food Inspector on the second accused for compelling him to sell the sample. the trial Court ought not have accepted the defence case at all. In view of what is stated by me earlier these questions are only of academic importance and need not be considered. I feel that this is a case in which in his wisdom the Food Inspector ought not have approached. the trial Court ought not have accepted the defence case at all. In view of what is stated by me earlier these questions are only of academic importance and need not be considered. I feel that this is a case in which in his wisdom the Food Inspector ought not have approached. the Court because he must have been aware as an ordinary man of prudence that his action will amount to an abuse of process of Court. Atleast after courting an order of acquittal wisdom ought to have dawned on him and I wish he ought not have approached this Court with a special leave application which will amount to further harassment which is neither the object of law nor proper discharge of official duty. When big guns are allowed to escape and petty dealers are harassed like this the society is likely to develop a sort of contempt towards such actions. The special leave petition has no merit and it is dismissed. Dismissed. Immediately after the order was pronounced the learned counsel for the petitioner made an oral request for leave to appeal to Supreme Court. I do not consider that this matter involves any substantial question of law which in my opinion requires to be settled by the Supreme Court. Therefore. special leave to appeal is dismissed. Leave to appeal refused.