JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - Conviction of the Petitioner u/s 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (heareinafter referred to as the Act) sentencing him to rigorous imprisonments for one year for selling adulterated til oil having been confirmed in appeal with modification of the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment has made the Petitioner prefer this revision for reversal of the same. 2. The case of the prosecution indicating the Petitioner is that on 20-1-1981 a raid was conducted by p.w. 1 the Food Inspector of the district of Keonjhar at 3.15 p. m. at the shop of the Petitioner in village Nandara and suspecting the til oil to be adulterated he took sample of it after observing the necessary formalities and on obtaining the report of the Public Analyst launched the prosecution. In defence the Petitioner contended that the til oil in question was not meant for human consumption but was for the purpose of massage only. 3. Mr. Mund the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has assailed the conviction raising three contentions, viz: (i) the provision of Section 10 (7) of the Act had not been complied with inasmuch as no independent witness has been called by p.w. 1 to witness the raid and taking of the sample; (ii) P. w. 1 was not the Food Inspector appointed u/s 9 (1) of the Act and (iii) there is no evidence that the 011 in question is utilised for human consumption in the area in question. 4. So far as the first question is concerned, the categorical evidence of p.w. 1 was the some of the outsiders who were present at the spot and were observing the occurrence, refused to be cited as witnesses and went away .without giving their identify. P. w. 2 who was the peon accompanying p.w. 1 also corroborated him on the question stating that the outsiders present at the time of occurrence when asked refused to be witnesses and did not disclose their identity. No cross-examination has been directed at p.w. 1 in that respect. In view of the evidence, it is amply clear that precautions had been taken to observe the provisions of Section 10 (7) of the Act and p.w. 1 had not failed in caning independent witnesses. No cross-examination has been directed at p.w. 1 in that respect. In view of the evidence, it is amply clear that precautions had been taken to observe the provisions of Section 10 (7) of the Act and p.w. 1 had not failed in caning independent witnesses. Since the persons present refused to be cited as witnesses, following the principles laid down in Shri Ram Labhaya Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another it must be held that the onus upon the Food Inspector had been discharged. This submission of Mr. Mund must accordingly fail. 5. So far as the second submission of Mr. Mund is concerned, it is urged that no notification has been filed showing the appointment of p.w. 1 as Food Inspector for the area in question and that rather a gazette notification produced by him in Court of 17-11-1983, published in the gazette dated 16-12-1983, purports to appoint p.w. 1 as Inspector retrospectively from 10-1-1974. It is submitted by Mr. Mund that such notification would show that on the date of raid i.e. 10-1-1981 p.w. 1 was not the Food Inspector and hence, had no authority to conduct the raid. It is not known under what circumstance the gazette notification has been Issued in 1983 giving retrospective appointment of p.w. 1 as Inspector. Admittedly, no cross-examinarion was directed at p.w. 1 to question his authority of having been appointed or not as the Food Inspector. I might have been persuaded to call upon the State to produce the notification of appointment of p.w. 1 on the relevant date as the Food Inspector but however, I do not think the same to be necessary for the view I am about to take with respect to the third submission of Mr. Mund. 6. His such submission is that til oil is not an article for human consumption in the area in question and there it is used only for massage. It is precisely the defence adopted by the Petitioner. It is not disputed that there is absolutely no evidence to show that til oil is used in the area for human consumption. 6. His such submission is that til oil is not an article for human consumption in the area in question and there it is used only for massage. It is precisely the defence adopted by the Petitioner. It is not disputed that there is absolutely no evidence to show that til oil is used in the area for human consumption. The question came to be considered by this Court in Gopinath Baliarsingh v. State 1987 (11) O.L.R. 460 wherein it was noticed that til oil in the State is used in many parts as edible oil and .in some other parts is mainly used for the purpose of massage on the body and relying on the third principle formulated in The State v. R. Krishnamurty it was held that since it is doubtful and disputed as to whether til oil is generally or commonly used in the locality as an article of food or not, the prosecution is to prove the same. It was held in the decision that unless the prosecution proves til oil to be an article of human consumption in the area in question, the accused cannot be found guilty of the offence. Similar view was taken in an earlier decision of this Court. Stilnkarlal Agarwala v. State of Orissa, wherein since the prosecution had not been able to prove that Mot dal was "food" within the meaning of the Act, and kept for sale for human consumption, a conviction for selling of such article was held not to be warranted. The decisions apply on all fours to the facts at hand. In that view of the matter, it must he said that the prosecution has not established the case against the Petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts. 7. In the result, the revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner are quashed. Final Result : Allowed