JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal arising out of the order of acquittal dated 12/3/1982 passed by the Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in criminal Case No. 525/80, acquitting the accused of an offence u/s 7 (1) and 16 (1) (a) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The facts of the case are that the respondent carries on business in butter and Ghee. His shop is situated at 187, Tilak Path, Indore from where the Food Inspector obtained a sample of butter, which was found to be adulterated, consequently he was prosecuted for the aforesaid offence and was acquitted on trial. ( 2. ) ON- 6-8-1975 by 11 A. M. in the morning the Food Inspector L. G. Chauhan inspected the respondents shop situated at 187, Tilak Path, Indore in presence of the accused respondent who produced a licence bearing No, 176 dated 19-7-1975 for the year 1975-76. About 1,000/- kg. of ghee was found stored for sale. 29 packed tins containing 16 Kg. of ghee in each one of them were found in the shop and another 500 Kg of ghee prepared from butter was kept in different utensils. There were 26 tins of packed butter found in the shop one of them was got opened by the accused and after proper mixing and churning 450 gms. of cooking butter was purchased by the Food Inspector for analysis who offered Rs. 6. 30 Ps. as the price for the butter (@ 14 Kg. ). The accused, however, refused to accept the price. This quantity of butter was divided in three equal parts and kept in dry clean bottles which were duly packed and sealed and one such sealed bottle was also given to the accused. While signing the preseribed form No. 6 the accused made the following endorsement : "sample KE LIVE JO MAKHAN LIYA GAYA HAI WAH safed HEI AUR BAGER NAMAK KA HAI AUR RANG rahit HAI. YEH KACCHA MAKHAN COOKING BUTTER kewal GHEE BANANE ME UPYOG HOTA HEI ISKA VIKRAY NAHI HOTA. " Panchnama was prepared on the spot which has also been signed by the accused respondent. ( 3. ) THE sample bottle was sent in a sealed box to the Public Analyst and a specimen seal impression along with form No. 7 was sent in a sealed envelope with the peon Phulchand. ( 4. " Panchnama was prepared on the spot which has also been signed by the accused respondent. ( 3. ) THE sample bottle was sent in a sealed box to the Public Analyst and a specimen seal impression along with form No. 7 was sent in a sealed envelope with the peon Phulchand. ( 4. ) ON receiving the report from the Public Analyst it was found that the cooking butter in question, was sub-standard so as it pertained to milk fats. Thereafter a complaint was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate first Class, Indore on 28-10-1975 which after a procrastinated trial, resulted in the acquittal of the accused respondent. It is to be noted that even the respondent is also to a certain extent contributory in the delay. ( 5. ) THE complainant examined himself as P. W. 1, the other witness P. W. 2 who is a panch witness admits his signatures on Exs. 1,2 and 3 but hastens to add that he was told by the complainant Food Inspector that he had taken the sample and he signed the same. ( 6. ) THE accused during the course of his examination under section 313, criminal Procedure Code produced a map. ( 7. ) THIS map is certified by the Health Officer of the Municipal corporation, Indore, the red portion therein, which comprises of three rooms indicate ghee dairy. Other references as contended in the map are Room No. 1 ghee manufacturing room. No. 2, butter processing and stock room and room no. 3 machine and lab. The descriptions as given in the map relied upon and produced by the accused respondent, has been referred to here with a view to facilitate appreciation of the submissions made by the parties as regards the actual user of the premises. Food Inspector L. G. Chauhan P. W. 1 has in his cross-examination stated that the sample from the place where ghee was being distributed to the respondents was for sale. It is also found in his cross-examination that the sample was taken from room no. 2 as shown in the map, and is further shown to be a butter processing and stock-room. It has come in his cross-examination that when he reached the place there was no actual distribution going on but the accused had told him that the butter was meant for distribution. 2 as shown in the map, and is further shown to be a butter processing and stock-room. It has come in his cross-examination that when he reached the place there was no actual distribution going on but the accused had told him that the butter was meant for distribution. He also admits that after the sample was taken, the accused told him that the cooking butter of which he had taken sample was not meant for sale. Ghee is manufactured by heating butter and it has also come in his evidence that the Public Analyst Shri Tambe died after submitting his report. The report of the public Analyst reads as follows :- " (a) Milk fat-68. 75% (b) Butyro-retracto meter reading at 40c of the separated fat - 42. 1 cm.- 16-8-75 (c) Bandomin test applied to the separated fat - Negative. (d) Extraneous colouring matter - Absent. (e) Common salt - Absent. and am of the opinion that the quality of the cooking Butter is below the standard prescribed. The milk fat is less than the prescribed limit. " Thus, according to the Public Analysts report Ex. P/4 the quality of the cooking butter was below the standard prescribed as milk fat was less than the prescribed limit. ( 8. ) THE acquittal of the respondent solely rests on the ground that no offence was made out as the article butter was to be used in preparation of ghee. Therefore, it was not covered u/s 2 (v) of the P. F. A. Act. No doubt that the offence relates to a date prior to the amendment of this section in the year 1976 but it is contended, by the appellant Municipal Corporation that if any article is used in composition or preparation of a human food, if found adulterated, it would also amount to an off once under the P. F. A. Act. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Trial Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the butter sample was not intended for sale but was meant for manufacturing ghee and in this view of the matter no offence as such was committed by the accused respondent. Shri Dhanji appearing for the appellant has also assailed the Trial Courts finding that butter was not sold nor was it stored for sale. Shri Dhanji appearing for the appellant has also assailed the Trial Courts finding that butter was not sold nor was it stored for sale. According to the learned Counsel in view of series of decisions sale for the purposes of analysis to the food Inspector also amounts to a sale, covered by the P. F. A. Act. ( 9. ) LEARNED Counsel Shri Bagadiya appearing for the respondents has submitted that the Trial Court has correctly applied the law and the Trial Courts judgment does not call for any interference. ( 10. ) BEFORE considering the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel , it would be pertinent to note that there is no dispute about the fact that the butter in question was found to be sub-standard by the Public Analyst vide ex. P/4. The Trial Court has also come to the conclusion that the required percentage of Milk fat as per standard prescribed for cooking butter is 76% whereas the sample in question found to be containing only 68. 75% of milk fat. Thus, it was indisputably below standard. Now taking up the rival contentions, it is to be borne in mind, that the huge quantity of butter and ghee was found in business premises of the accused respondent and there is ample evidence on record to show that this stock of ghee or butter was for sale. Although the accused respondent has contended that butter was not for sale, it was stocked for manufacturing and preparing ghee. Shri Dhanji learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that since butter was sold to the Food Inspector, for analysis, it would also amount to sale. Shri Bagadia on the other hand has pointed out that the accused did not accept the price of butter offered by the food Inspector. Mere non-acceptance of price would not mean that there was no sale as contemplated by the Act. The definition of sale under the Act specifically includes a sale of sample to Food Inspector, even if the transaction contains all element of compulsory sale to Food Inspector, is nonetheless a sale within the meaning of the Act, Mangaldas v. Maharashtra State, AIR 1966 SC 128 . The definition of sale under the Act specifically includes a sale of sample to Food Inspector, even if the transaction contains all element of compulsory sale to Food Inspector, is nonetheless a sale within the meaning of the Act, Mangaldas v. Maharashtra State, AIR 1966 SC 128 . The learned Counsel has referred to a Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court Madanlal v. State, 72 FAC 481 wherein the Court has held that if a person who is not a dealer of an article of food as such, and who keeps it only for preparation of another article of food, meant for sale, sells such an article to the Food Inspector, for the purposes of analysis and if the sample is found to be adulterated, he is guilty of an offence under the act. Even if he does not sell such an article of food to the Food Inspector and even does not accept the price tendered by the Food Inspector, section 10 (1) of the Act empowers the Food Inspector, to take a sample of such an article of food, and that all that the Food Inspector is required to do in such circumstances is to tender payment of the price, of the sample. It does not matter, whether the person from whom the sample is taken accepts such payment or not. If such article of food is found to be adulterated, even then the person from whom such sample was taken, will be guilty of an offence under the Act. Such a position would be in conformity with the object for which the Act has been enacted, namely, to prevent adulteration of food, and to protect the health of the citizens. ( 11. ) IT would be pertinent to note here that the respondent is a dealer in ghee as proved by the prosecution and also admitted by the accused in his statements recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, ( 12. ) COMING now to the question whether the huge quantity of butter (of 16 kg. each) about 500 Kg. of Ghee in big pans, apart from 29 packed tins of ghee (each containing 16 Kg. ). The accused has a licence for Dairy Products, at 187, tilak Path, Indore and Licence No. 176 dated 19-7-1975; for the year 75-76 was displayed in the shop. It is proved by P. W. 1. each) about 500 Kg. of Ghee in big pans, apart from 29 packed tins of ghee (each containing 16 Kg. ). The accused has a licence for Dairy Products, at 187, tilak Path, Indore and Licence No. 176 dated 19-7-1975; for the year 75-76 was displayed in the shop. It is proved by P. W. 1. The accused has also admitted in his statement recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, he had shown the same to the Food Inspector P. W. 1. The huge quantity of ghee and butter found at the time of inspection is also admitted by the accused. ( 13. ) IT is his cross-examination of Food Inspector P. W. 1, that it was asked whether any actual distribution of butter was done, but it was the accused who told the Food Inspector that the butter was for distribution for sale at other shops of his own. Thus, there is sufficient evidence on record to hold that the butter stocked and stored by the accused was for sale. The accused in his statement has referred to a notice not for sale, (See reply to question No. 21), but the Food inspector P. W. 1 who was knowing about such notice, in cross-examination has denied the same. ( 14. ) SHRI Dhanji learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that it is a matter of common knowledge that butter and ghee are both articles of food for human consumption, there can be no denial of this fact. The definition of food was amended by Act 34 of 1976, with effect from 1-4-1976 and the definition as it stands now, fully covers the present case, even if the defence plea raised by the accused respondent is accepted. Shri Dhanji has submitted that butter is an article which ordinarily enters into or used in the composition or preparation of human food, namely, ghee, even without the amended definition of food, the Supreme Court had in fact held in 1971 that even any article of food, which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food, if found adulterated, would also amount to an offence under the p. F. A. Act. It was this decision, of the Supreme Court which ultimately led to the amendment of the definition of food in the year 1976. (See A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 1725 ). It was this decision, of the Supreme Court which ultimately led to the amendment of the definition of food in the year 1976. (See A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 1725 ). The Trial Court according to the learned Counsel for the appellant has over-looked this judgment, while acquitting the accused respondent. Even while holding the butter sample to be adulterated, the sole ground for acquittal assigned by the Trial Court is that the butter in question was stored for manufacturing ghee. ( 15. ) SHRI Bagadia learned Counsel appearing for the accused respondent has vehemently contended that the Trial Courts finding, that butter was stocked for manufacturing ghee and was not meant for either distribution or sale, is a finding based on proper appreciation of evidence, and should not be interfered with. The Trial Court has placed reliance on two facts that the accused did not accept price and the Panchanama Ex. P/3 does not contain a statement to the effect that the butter stocked and stored was meant for distribution, for sale. Firstly, Panchnama is not a substantive piece of evidence and secondly, the witness P. W. 1 has explained the omission of the word vitaran in respect of butter, A Panchnama is not to be approached and viewed with a grammarians eye. Thus, even on evidence the conclusion that the butter was stored only for preparing ghee and not for distribution, cannot be up-held. ( 16. ) THE Act has been enacted to curb and remedy the wide-spread evil of food adulteration and to ensure the sale of wholesome food to the people. It is well settled that wherever possible without unreasonable stretching or straining the language of such a statute should be construed in a manner which would suppress the mischief, advance the remedy, promote its object, prevent its subtle evasion and foil its artful circumvention, (See A. I. R. 19/6 S. C. 394 ). The meaning of common words relating to common articles consumed by common people, available commonly and contained in a statute intended to protect the community generally must be gathered from the commonsense understanding of the word. The Act defines food very widely as covering any article used as food and every component which enters into it and even flavouring matter and condiments. The Act defines food very widely as covering any article used as food and every component which enters into it and even flavouring matter and condiments. It is commonplace knowledge that the word food is a very general term and applies to all that is eaten by men for nourishment and takes in subsidiaries, (See A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 228 ). Ghee undoubtedly being an article of food for human consumption and is ordinarily used in the preparation of human food, can and should an adulterator, vendor of ghee be allowed to sell adulterated ghee under the pretext that it was not meant for human consumption, but for Diwali lighting purposes. Such a defence is not available against the charge of selling adulterated ghee. Similarly, butter when found to be adulterated the defence that it was not for human consumption, but only for preparing ghee therefrom, and ghee being sold for human consumption, the defence as regards butter that it was meant for preparing ghee is also untenable. ( 17. ) THE Trial Court has gone to the extent that even if the butter sample is found to be adulterated, and in this case the percentage of milk fats being only 68. 75% as against 76. 0% of milk fat by weight, as standards prescribed for Deshi (Cooking butter ). The Trial Court has said that even if this milk fat percentage was less, it could have been made good in the process of preparation of ghee. There is not even an iota of evidence to enable the Court to reach such a conclusion. There is unimpeachable evidence on record to show that the accused respondent is a dealer in dairy products and holds a licence for that purpose, as proved by the prosecution and admitted by the accused. There is not even an iota of evidence to enable the Court to reach such a conclusion. There is unimpeachable evidence on record to show that the accused respondent is a dealer in dairy products and holds a licence for that purpose, as proved by the prosecution and admitted by the accused. The Supreme Court in a case of a Tea Stall owner selling tea, and the sugar was kept only for the purpose of being mixed with tea which was sold to the customers, and even in face of admission on the part of Food Inspector that sugar as such was not sold in the tea Stall, yet on a sample of sugar purchased from the tea stall by the Food inspector and found to be adulterated on analysis, the Supreme Court found the tea stall owner guilty of an offence, in the case of Food Inspector Calicut v. C. Gopalan, AIR 1971 SC 1725 ( 18. ) SHRI Bagadia learned Counsel appearing for the accused respondent submitted that as per certified copy of the map filed by the accused, the premises, was not used for sale. This map which has been referred to as Ex. D/1 by the Trial court in its judgment, was submitted at the time of obtaining a licence for dairy products from the Municipal Corporation, Indore for the premises. The user is indicated but in the map it cannot be said that the premises cannot be used for purposes other than the one indicated in the map itself. ( 19. ) THE judgment in the case of C. Gopalan (supra) is sought to be distinguished on the ground that price was not. accepted by the respondent. As discussed above, acceptance of price would not make any difference, so far as the sale to the Food Inspector for the purpose of analysis is concerned. ( 20. ) FOR the foregoing reasons the appeal deserves to be allowed, it is accordingly allowed. The accused is found guilty of the offence under section 7 (1)read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. ( 21. ) THE object of the act is to protect the citizens against the evils of adulteration. The act itself has been enacted with the aim of irradicating the antisocial evil and for ensuring purity in articles of food. ( 21. ) THE object of the act is to protect the citizens against the evils of adulteration. The act itself has been enacted with the aim of irradicating the antisocial evil and for ensuring purity in articles of food. It is high time that the dealers in adulterated articles of food should realise that placards or notices such as "not For Sale, are not impregnable siegfried lines, affording protection to the anti-socials to flourish and. thrive in their business at the cost of the health and well-being of the citizens. The hazards of health either stored, distributed or sold by such anti-socials need to be curbed with a stern hand. Uncalled for technicalities and niceties of interpretation, is, therefore, to be avoided. ( 22. ) THE huge quantity of butter as found is indicative of the collosal scale of adulteration that goes on. There can and should be no leniency in such matters. The accused respondent is, therefore, convicted and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine shall further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. The accused-respondent shall surrender his bail bonds to serve out the sentence. Order accordingly.