Judgment :- 1. All these fourt appeals have been filed against the acquittal of the accused in four food adulteration cases, and the common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated judgment. 2. The Food Inspector of Palghat Municipality purchased 750 m.l. each of cow's milk from the four accused persons. He prepared samples and one sample each was sent for analysis, and the report of the Local Health Authority showed that the milk did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Food Adulteration Rules and therefore adulterated. Prosecution was launched against the accused. They had not chosen to send the sample for analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. Even though the accused had not set up any specific defence, from the tenor of cross-examination of Pw.1 it would appear that the accused was carrying the milk not for the purpose of sale and that the accused did not know Malayalam, and the Food Inspector bad not taken sample strictly in accordance with the provisions of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 3. In all theses cases 2 witnesses each were examined on the side of the prosecution. They were Food Inspector and Public Analyst respectively. Pw.1, the Food Inspector, stated that he bad taken the sample from the accused after serving form VI notice and that the sample was prepared in accordance with the Food Adulteration Rules and that be had also prepared a mahazar. Pw. 2, the Public Analyst, was examined to prove that seal of the packet was intact. Probably taking into consideration of the fact that the trial of the cases was summary nature, the evidence has been recorded very briefly. Oh the basis of this evidence the learned Magistrate has chosen to acquit the accused for two reasons. Firstly it was held that the accused were persons hailing from Tamil Nadu and that they did not know Malayalam and it was the duty of the Food Inspector to translate all the documents into a language known to the accused before obtaining their acknowledgment of the notice, and all these accused were not aware of the contents of the documents prepared by the Food Inspector. Secondly it has been held by the Magistrate that the milk was being carried in a can from the bus-stop and carrying milk in a can will not prove that the accused were selling or stocking milk for sale. Probably the Magistrate was of the opinion that the purchase of milk by the Food Inspector during this transit would not amount to sale. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants seriously contended that the finding of the Magistrate is erroneous and illegal. The first contention that these accused persons knew only Tamil and they did not know any other language is not borne out by any evidence. The accused had no case before the trial court that they knew only Tamil. The case records show that these accused were questioned by the court under S.313 Cr. PC in Malayalam. The gist of the allegation was read over to these accused in Malayalam and the Magistrate has recorded the answers of these accused in the same language. The evidence would also go to show that the accused had brought milk from Pollachi and they had gone to dispose of the same in Palghat area. As they bad been engaged in some business in Palghat, it is to be presumed that necessarily they would have had the basic knowledge in Malayalam, even though they were persons belonging to Tamil Nadu. The assumption of the Magistrate that they knew only Tamil and that they were seriously prejudiced by the acts of the Food Inspector is not correct. 5. The Food Inspector in this case has prepared a contemporaneous document to evidence the purchase of the article and also to prove that he followed all statutory formalities. The same has been produced and marked as Ext. P4 mahazar. In Ext. P4 it has been mentioned that he bad taken the sample in accordance with the rules prescribed for taking sample. Pw 1 had made known to the accused that he was a Food Inspector and the milk was being purchased for analysis, Pw 4 paid the requisite amount as price of the milk and the accused accepted the same. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused that these accused persons were not knowing Malayalam and therefore they were seriously prejudiced cannot be accepted. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused that these accused persons were not knowing Malayalam and therefore they were seriously prejudiced cannot be accepted. Even if it was proved that they only knew Tamil and that they bad not known any of the contents of the documents prepared by the Food Inspector, there should have been a special plea and proof that the accused were seriously prejudiced by the conduct of the Food Inspector. Merely because the accused were persons belonging to Tamil Nadu it cannot be held that the entire steps taken by the Food Inspector were vitiated. The Food Adulteration Act itself is in English and many of the forms prescribed thereunder are in that language. The accused cannot plead ignorance and claim any privilege on this aspect. 6. The next contention urged by the accused is that the milk carried in the can was not intended for sale and it was purchased from the premises of Railway station. No such specific plea has been raised by the accused, during the cross-examination of Pw.1 it was asked as to whether he saw the accused selling milk to any other person. The accused had no case that the milk was intended for any domestic use. They were carrying about 10 litres of milk in a can. 6A. The Food Inspector has taken sample under S.10(1) of the Act. Under S.10(1)(a) of the Act the Food Inspector has power to take samples of any article of food from any person selling such article or any person who is in the course of conveying, delivering or preparing to deliver such article to a purchaser or consignee. So even if it is assumed that the milk was being carried to somebody else it is clear that the milk was intended to be sold to the public. Otherwise the accused would not have brought this much quantity of milk from Tamil Nadu to Kerala. The intention of the accused was cleat from the facts and circumstances of this case. The Food Inspector need not adduce any evidence that he had seen the accused selling the article to others. In the absence of any specific defence the learned Magistrate should not have acquitted the accused on this ground. 7. The intention of the accused was cleat from the facts and circumstances of this case. The Food Inspector need not adduce any evidence that he had seen the accused selling the article to others. In the absence of any specific defence the learned Magistrate should not have acquitted the accused on this ground. 7. Both the reasons given by the learned Magistrate to acquit the accused are not sustainable and these are cases where it is proved by the certificates issued by the Public Analyst that the milk in question was adulterated. However, I am disabled from convicting the accused straightaway, since the accused were not properly questioned by the trial court under S.313 Cr.PC. The trial Magistrate has chosen to put only one question to the accused. The entire prosecution evidence has been encapsulated in a single question and put to the accused. However, the learned Magistrate did not put any question regarding Ext. P10 report and Ext. P4 mahazar Under S.313 Cr. PC the accused should have been asked about the various items of evidence appearing against him and if the relevant items of evidence were not put to the witnesses the court cannot place reliance on the evidence of these witnesses and convict the accused. It has been made clear by a host of decisions of the Supreme Court. (See Zwinglee Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1954 SC 15), Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat (AIR 1953 SC 468), P. V. Lakshmi Ammal v. State of Madras and another (AIR 1955 Madras 119) and Chacko Mathew v. State (1969 KLT 222). Therefore the only alternative is to send back the case for proper questioning of the accused and for disposal of this case in accordance with law. The order of acquittal of the accused is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal. The Court shall examine the accused under S.313 Cr.PC and dispose of the case in the light of the discussion stated above. Allowed.