Judgment :- 1. The trial court and the appellate court have concurrently found the revision petitioner (second accused) guilty under S.7 (i) read with S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') and R.44A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short 'the Rules'). He has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The first accused was likewise convicted and sentenced by the trial court, but the same has been set aside by the appellate court. Second Accused being aggrieved has filed this revision petition. 2. The Food Inspector, Alleppey Municipality filed a complaint against the two accused, father and son, alleging that on 12-12-1977 he visited the shop of which first accused is the licensee, found second accused conducting the business in the shop and after observing the legal formalities purchased 750 grams of peas dhall but of the larger stock exhibited for sale in the premises and put each part of the sample in a polythene bag or cover and the same on analysis was found to contain 82% kesari dhall and therefore adulterated. The Food Inspector was examined as P. W.1. Two attestors to Ext. P3 mahazar were examined as P.Ws 2 and 3, but they turned hostile. Acting on the evidence of P. W.1 and partially on the evidence of P. W. 2 and relying on Ext. P5 report of the Public Analyst, the two courts below held the second accused guilty of selling adulterated peas dhall. We are not concerned with the acquittal of the first accused, however wrong it may be. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised two contentions before us. First is that in sampling the food article, P. W.1 violated R.14 of the Rules inasmuch as the three equal parts of the sample were put in three polythene covers and not in bottles or jars and that has prejudiced the revision petitioner. Second contention is that the revision petitioner has nothing to do with the business and therefore he is not criminally liable. 4. Second contention is that the revision petitioner has nothing to do with the business and therefore he is not criminally liable. 4. R.14 of the Rules reads thus: "Samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation, or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed." The rule requires sample to be taken in clean dry bottles or clean dry jars or in other suitable containers. They have to be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage or evaporation. Where the sample taken is a dry substance, it shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent entrance of moisture. All the containers shall be carefully sealed. The container whether it be a bottle or a jar or otherwise must necessarily be clean and dry. That is to ensure that the sample is analysed in the state in which it was sold by the vendor. The rule refers to "bottle or jar or other suitable container". The container must be closed tight to prevent leakage and evaporation or in the case of dry substance to prevent entrance of moisture, in other words, to ensure any part of the sample from getting out of the container or in the case of dry substance to ensure that moisture from outside does not enter the sample. The rule does not exhaustively enumerate all the kinds of containers which could be used. Reference to bottle and jar is not exhaustive. Any other suitable container can be used. The suitability of a container would ordinarily depend on the nature of the food article dealt with. The rule itself does not create any inherent limitation or restriction except that the container must be suitable. 5. Peas dhall is a dry hard substance. In order to preserve and safeguard peas dhall, it need not necessarily be put in a bottle or jar. It can be preserved and safeguarded in polythene cover also. What has to be ensured is that the quantity of peas dhall put in the cover is not reduced by leakage and that extraneous matter including moisture does not enter the container. This can certainly be ensured by putting the samples of peas dhall in polythene covers which are properly closed and sealed. What has to be ensured is that the quantity of peas dhall put in the cover is not reduced by leakage and that extraneous matter including moisture does not enter the container. This can certainly be ensured by putting the samples of peas dhall in polythene covers which are properly closed and sealed. Polythene is thermoplastic polymer of ethylene; it has plastic base. It is not shown that polythene has any chemical or other action on peas dhall. The offence in this case consists only in the sale of peas dhall with admixture of kesari dhall, which is prohibited under R.44A. Polythene certainly cannot have the effect of changing peas dhall into kesari dhall. Preservation of the sample of peas dhall in polythene cover is not a violation of R.14 of the Rules. There is no prejudice caused to the accused. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on two decisions in support of his contention. First decision referred to is in Pritam Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (ECC) Excise and Food Adulteration Reports Vol. V page 560), a decision of a learned single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In that case, sample of haldi powder was taken in paper packet. The court relying on earlier decisions of the same court held that taking sample of article like haldi powder in paper packet is a violation of R.14. The judgment does not give any reason for the conclusion. It may perhaps be that haldi powder kept in a paper packet is affected by moisture from the atmosphere as paper cannot resist moisture. The judgment also does not indicate the exact nature of the adulteration in that case. Therefore this decision cannot apply to the facts of the present case. The next decision relied on is in Sham Lal v. State of Punjab (ECC) Excise and Food Adulteration Reports Vol. VI page 174), a decision of a learned single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In that case sample of red chilly powder was put in a paper packet. The court held that that constitutes a violation of R.14 of the Rules. The judgment does not give any reason for the conclusion and does not indicate the nature of the adulteration except to mention that sample was reported to be sub standard. In that case sample of red chilly powder was put in a paper packet. The court held that that constitutes a violation of R.14 of the Rules. The judgment does not give any reason for the conclusion and does not indicate the nature of the adulteration except to mention that sample was reported to be sub standard. It may perhaps be that red chilly powder kept in a paper packet is affected by moisture and that may render it sub standard. There is no sufficient data in the judgment to enable us to find out the rationale of the decision. In our opinion, the above decisions cannot provide any guidelines to decide whether taking a sample of peas dhall in a polythene bag violates R.14. Even assuming that there is a violation of the rule, the question is whether it has affected the contents of the sample in any way and whether it has caused prejudice to the accused. There is nothing in the evidence and circumstances of the case to indicate that taking the sample in a polythene cover has led to any such consequence. We therefore overrule the first contention. 7. Second accused, when he was questioned in the trial court, stated that he is a student and he has nothing to say about the trade. From this answer it is argued by learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner has nothing to do with the business and the alleged sale of the sample by him to the Food Inspector cannot be regarded as a sale. P.W.1, Food Inspector, in chief-examination deposed that when he visited the shop first accused was absent and second accused was actually conducting the business. This evidence was not challenged in cross-examination. P.W.2. an employee of the first accused and was present in the shop and attested the mahazar, Ext.P3, also deposed that it was the second accused who was conducting the business at that time. He declined to support the prosecution in other respects. He was also not cross-examined in this behalf. He specifically stated that in the absence of the first accused it is the second accused who conducts the business. No witness was asked whether second accused is a student. He declined to support the prosecution in other respects. He was also not cross-examined in this behalf. He specifically stated that in the absence of the first accused it is the second accused who conducts the business. No witness was asked whether second accused is a student. In view of this un-challenged evidence, it must necessarily follow that the second accused is the person who conducts business in the absence of his father and it was in such capacity that he sold the sample to the Food Inspector. Hence the argument that he has nothing to do with the business and was present merely to keep watch over the shop in the absence of his father cannot be accepted. In this view it is unnecessary for us to consider whether a person who is put in charge of a shop merely to watch over the shop cannot be held guilty under the provisions of the Act. 8. We find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the revision petition. \