Order This revision case is preferred by Accused No. 2 in this case. The facts leading to the present revision case are summarily as follows: On 9th September, 1982 at about 8 a.m., the Food Inspector, Kamudhi Town Panchayat visited the shop of accused No.2 who is running a grocery shop and he purchased six packets of 200 gms. each of Rathna Tea, shown to be manufactured by Murthy & Co., Tuticorin. he sent the samples purchased to various places according to the procedure laid down in law. He received from the Public Analyst a report showing that the sample did not conform to the standards for Kangra Tea in respect of total ash insoluble in H.C. A., and totally soluble in boiling distilled water and also for the reason that the sample contained white particles Comprising calcium carbonate and foreign matter not belonging to the realm of tea. On perusal of this report, the Food Inspector came to the conclusion that the tea he purchased from accused No.2 was adulterated and he accordingly filed a Complaint before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate of Ramanathapuram against accused No.1, viz., Arunagiri son of Ramasamy Nadar, manufacturer, Murthy Tea Company, Tuticorin and accused No. 2. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court after perusing the evidence placed by the Food Inspector consisting of his own oral evidence and 20 exhibits came to the conclusion that both the accused were guilty of the offence under Ss.7 (i), 16 (1A) (i) read with S.2(ia) (a) and (k) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. On Appeal, the Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai by his Judgment dated 12th March, 1984 acquitted the accused No.1 for the reason that there was no adequate proof that he was the owner of Murthy & Company and therefore the manufacturer of the adulterated tea, but confirmed the conviction and sentence as far as accused No.2 is concerned. So accused No.2 who stands sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment and find of Rs.1, 000 has preferred this revision case. 3. The first ground urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is mat the appellate Court, when it has acquitted the first accused, should have also acquitted the second accused. So accused No.2 who stands sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment and find of Rs.1, 000 has preferred this revision case. 3. The first ground urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is mat the appellate Court, when it has acquitted the first accused, should have also acquitted the second accused. No doubt the actual vendor in order to get exonerated under S.19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 should prove that he purchased the article of food form a manufacturer with the written warranty in the prescribed form and that he sold the article in the same state as he purchased it. As per S.14 of the Act, the manufacturer should give such a warranty whenever an article is sold. But as per the proviso of that section, a bill or cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the same given by the manufacturer would be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer. The combined effect of these two provisions is that both the manufacturer and the vendor cannot escape in throwing the fault each on the other, but if the manufacturer is clearly made known, the vendor is to be exonerated: In this case, accused No.2 was not in a position to produce any bill or cash memorandum or invoice. But he gave a statement that he purchased the tea from Murthy & Company of Tuticorin. The articles sold contained a label indicating clearly the origin. The Food Inspector was convinced that the tea sold by second accused was manufactured by Murthy Tea Company as it could be gathered from a clear statement to that effect in the Complaint itself. Once the Food Inspector has come to such a conclusion, second accused cannot be prosecuted and has to be exonerated. 4. It is surprising to note that in this case the Food Inspector has acted in an inconsistent manner. Once it became apparent to him that the adulterated tea was manufactured by Murthy & Company of Tuticorin, he should have visited that Company, ascertained the manufacturer, taken samples from that Company and fixed the liability properly. He should have eventually seized all the stock forming part of same batch of production and called upon the retial vendors of the same product to surrender the stock available with them and informed the prospective consumers. He should have eventually seized all the stock forming part of same batch of production and called upon the retial vendors of the same product to surrender the stock available with them and informed the prospective consumers. He rested content with just the purchase of samples from the retail vendor from a remote village. The net result is that the real guilty person is not available for punishment and perhaps he continues to produce and distribute such adulterated tea. So, the act of the Food Inspector has not been, in any manner conductive to the prevention of food adulteration, the purpose for which he is appointed. He has acted in this case as if his duty was confined to book now and then some small retailers and show that they are selling adulterated articles. This is a sad state of affairs indeed. Such instances would invite the Government to reconsider the blanket delegation of powers to institute proceedings given in favour of Food Inspectors who happen to be the field officers in charge of detection of adulteration of food. The device of consent to be given by a higher authority provided in the Act may be availed of in order to streamline the prosecution and render it more effective by way of avoidance of waste of time and concentration of effort on deserving cases. 5. In the result, this revision case is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed on the second accused are set aside. B.S. ----- Petition allowed.