Judgment :- 1. Petitioner was prosecuted for offence u/s S.16(1)(a)(i) read with S.2(ia)(a)(c) and (m) and S.7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act and item A. 05.08.01 of Appendix B to Rule S of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. He was also charged with offence u/s. 16(1)(a)(ii) read with S.7(iii) and (v) of the Act and R.50(i) of the Rules. During trial, at the instance of the petitioner second accused, manufacturer was impleaded u/s.20 A of the Act Without recording the plea of the second accused trial was proceeded with. P.Ws 1 to 6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P4 marked. At this stage it was noticed by the Magistrate that the plea of the second accused was not recorded. Thereupon a denovo trial was held after the particulars of offence were read over and explained to the second accused and he pleaded not guilty. Learned Magistrate after appreciating the entire evidence found petitioner guilty of the offence u/s.16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. He was convicted thereunder and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. He was acquitted of the charges u/ss.16(1) (a) (ii) of the Act. As there was no evidence connecting the second accused with the article of food sold by the petitioner, he was acquitted Petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence in appeal without success. Hence this revision petition 2. Prosecution version of the incident is as follows :-- At about 10 a.m. on 2-6-1983 Food Inspector, P.W.1 inspected the provision shop of the petitioner at Kidangoor. After revealing his identity and service of Form VI notice, P.W.1 purchased 600 gms. of coriander powder from the petitioner. He divided the same into 3 equal samples. The sampling was done in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. One part of the sample was sent to Public Analyst for analysis and the other two parts to the Local Health Authority. Form VII memorandum together with specimen impression of the seal used to seal the samples were also sent to the Public Analyst and Local Health Authority in accordance with the Rules. After analysis Public Analyst sent his report in Form III. Form VII memorandum together with specimen impression of the seal used to seal the samples were also sent to the Public Analyst and Local Health Authority in accordance with the Rules. After analysis Public Analyst sent his report in Form III. It stated that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed for coriander powder under the Rules and hence adulterated. Consequently complaint was laid before court. Local Health Authority then sent a copy of Form HI report together with notice u/s. 13(2) of the Act to the petitioner. He did not choose to have a sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. 3. Public Analyst's report, Ext.P12, gave the result of the analysis as follows:-- and I am of the opinion that the said sample does not conform to the standards prescribed for coriander powder under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and is therefore adulterated." 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner urged two points for consideration. The first one is that there is inconsistency in the evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding the sampling. That inconsistency is fatal to the prosecution. The second ground urged by the learned counsel is that the Public Analyst's report, Ext.P12, cannot be acted upon in view of his testimony before court as P.W.2. I shall proceed to deal with these arguments in detail. 5. Food Inspector as P.W.1 has sworn to the various steps taken by him in the purchase and sampling of coriander powder from the provision shop of the petitioner. In his evidence he has stated that the coriander powder purchased by him was properly mixed and sampled it in 3 clean and dry bottles. He prepared a mahazar at the time of the sampling. It is a contemporaneous record of the various steps taken by the Food Inspector. It is marked in this case as Ext.PS. That mahazar is silent regarding the manner in which coriander powder purchased from the petitioner was mixed. P.W.1 stated before court that the powder was put on a plastic sheet placed on the table and mixed before sampling. In cross-examination he was asked as to how he mixed the powder. He gave the reply that a spoon was used for mixing the powder. Since this aspect was not mentioned in Ext.PS, learned counsel wants this court to disbelieve P.W.1's statement that he used a spoon to mix the powder. In cross-examination he was asked as to how he mixed the powder. He gave the reply that a spoon was used for mixing the powder. Since this aspect was not mentioned in Ext.PS, learned counsel wants this court to disbelieve P.W.1's statement that he used a spoon to mix the powder. Further P.W.3, peon attached to the Food Inspector, at the first instance stated that the powder was mixed by P.W.1 using his hand. Later when the case was tried denovo, he stated before court that a spoon was used by the Food Inspector for mixing the powder. According to counsel, this difference regarding the spoon used for mixing the powder as stated by P.W.3 should also be taken as a fatal defect of the prosecution. I find it difficult to accept this argument advanced by counsel. According to me, the mahazar need not contain all the minute details regarding the steps taken by the Food Inspector. The preparation of mahazar is not contemplated by any of the provisions of the Act or Rules. No witness is also to be called upon to attest the mahazar. To give credence to the evidence given by the Food Inspectors, they prepare mahazar which is a contemporaneous record of what takes place at the time of the sampling. One or more persons to be called by the Food Inspector u/s. 10(7) are to affix their signature or thumb impression on the paper slip pasted around the sample, if the vendor refuses to affix his signature thereon. This is the only part to be played by person or persons called by the Food Inspector as per S.10(7) of the Act (Vide R.16(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules). Therefore the absence of the details regarding the method adopted by the Food Inspector in mixing the sample in the mahazar is not at all fatal to the prosecution. It is true that P.W.3 stated before court, at the first instance, that P.W.1 mixed the powder by using his hand. This was given a goby and he asserted that a spoon was used for mixing the powder. P.w.l, right from the very beginning, stated before court that he used the spoon for mixing the powder purchased from the petitioner. This evidence of P.W.1 has not been shown to be untrustworthy. Courts below have accepted his version. This was given a goby and he asserted that a spoon was used for mixing the powder. P.w.l, right from the very beginning, stated before court that he used the spoon for mixing the powder purchased from the petitioner. This evidence of P.W.1 has not been shown to be untrustworthy. Courts below have accepted his version. The Food Inspector is not in the position of an accomplice and his evidence alone if believed can sustain the conviction. On going through his evidence, I do hot find any ground to discard his evidence. On the materials now before court, I concur with the conclusion arrived at by the courts below that the Food Inspector purchased the coriander powder from the petitioner, mixed the same by using a spoon and sampled the same in 3 dry clean bottles strictly in compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The result, therefore is, I find no substance in the first ground urged by the learned counsel. 6. As stated earlier, Ext.P12 is the report of the Public Analyst It states that the sample, when reached the Public Analyst was property sealed and fastened and that the seal was found intact and unbroken. It further went on to state that the seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector. As P.W.2, the Public Analyst has spoken to it In cross examination he gave evidence in the following terms:- "One of my staff members received the sample parcel from the parcel agency. He will produce the article before me. Then the number, address etc. will be compared with the records and if found correct the parcel will be accepted and handed over to the person authorised by me to open the parcel. In this case I can say who open the parcel only if I peruse the office records. The person authorised by me opens the parcel and verify the seal and compare it with the specimen impression of the seal." From this statement, it is argued that the condition of the sample and the seal were not personally verified by the Public Analyst and it was done by some of his subordinates. This procedure, according to counsel, has gone to defeat the prosecution. I find precious little in this argument. This procedure, according to counsel, has gone to defeat the prosecution. I find precious little in this argument. R.7(1) of the Rules allows the Public Analyst or an officer authorised by him to compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received separately and to note the conditions of the seals thereon. This provision was not only strictly complied with in spirit but also in fact P.W.2 has stated that the member of the staff who received the sample has first produced the article before him. So he also verified the condition of the sample. Over and above that one member of the staff who was authorised by the Public Analyst had also verified the condition. Viewed in this manner, I do not find any defect in Ext.P12 certificate. 7. Yet another argument advanced by the learned counsel is that the quantity taken by the Public Analyst for finding the ash contents was too small and it has gone to affect the result materially. P.W.2 in cross-examination was asked as to how the total ash content is determined by analysis? The answer given by him was:- "2 grams of the well mixed sample is taken in a weighed silica crucible and ignited in a muffle furnace between 600 o C and 700 DC. The crucible is cooled in a decicater and weighed. From this the total ash content is determined by calculation." According to counsel, minimum quantity that should have been taken is 5 grams. Since the Public Analyst has taken only 2 grams, his result should not be accepted. I do not find any material to support this argument of counsel. P.W.2 was not asked whether the minimum quantity required for carrying on the test is S grams. Nor was he asked whether 2 grams taken by him has gone to change the result materially. In the absence of this data it cannot be held that the result is faulty. This conclusion is supported by the LS.I. Handbook of Food Analysis published by Indian Standard Institution (SP:18 (Parts V, VI & VII) 1982 published in March 1982). This publication does not prescribe any quantity as the minimum required for carrying on the test for finding out the ash content in the article of food. The quantity required for an experiment is to be decided by the analyst. This publication does not prescribe any quantity as the minimum required for carrying on the test for finding out the ash content in the article of food. The quantity required for an experiment is to be decided by the analyst. It the quantity is found by him to be sufficient for the experiment, court cannot, in the absence of sufficient data, take a contrary view. In the instant case there is no such material. 8. One further argument advanced by the learned counsel is that the P.W.2, Public Analyst, did not give the nature of the filter paper used for finding out the ash content in the instant case. It is true that he had not given the details of the filter paper used in the process of analysis. It is so, because he was not asked about it. According to counsel, the filter paper to be used in such cases should be the ashless type. Since the Public Analyst has not stated that the filter paper used was ashless, according to counsel, the result given in Ext.P12 should be discarded. If for a particular test ashless filter paper ought to have been used, in the absence of material to show that it was not so used, this court will not be justified in ignoring the report sent by the Public Analyst presuming that the filter paper used was not ashless. For finding out the ash content filter paper has to be used. If the paper used leaves ashes it will go to affect the result. So the Public Analyst who is to find the ash content should be presumed to have used only an ashless filter paper. Public Analyst an Officer of the State has discharged his official duties. Those duties should be presumed to have been performed regularly. (Vide Full Bench decision in Mathukutty v. State of Kerala (1987 (2) K.L.T. 867). It therefore follows that the second contention raised by the learned counsel is to be rejected. I do so. No other point was urged by counsel on behalf of the petitioner. The result, therefore is, conviction entered by the courts below calls for no interference. For the offence under the Act the petitioner has been awarded the minimum sentence prescribed by the Statute. It does not call for any interference either. Criminal Revision Petition fails. It is dismissed.