RAJESHWAR SINGH, J. The learned Magistrate convicted the revisionist under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. On failure to pay fine, rigorous imprisonment for one more year was ordered. He filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed. Then he has come to this Court though this revision. 2. The Food Inspector took sample of tobacco from the revisionist. It was sent to Public Analyst. He reported that the tobacco had been coloured by coaltar dye while use of colour was prohibited in case of tobacco. After necessary sanction the revisionist was prosecuted and he was found guilty for adulteration of tobacco as said earlier. 3. The first argument that has been pressed on behalf of the revisionist is that the Food Inspector, who took sample, had no right to take the sample. The argument is developed by saying that Food Inspector says in his examination-in-chief that he was appointed at Primary Health Centre Katehri, and Darshan Nagar, wherefrom the sample was taken was not in Katehri Block, Both Katehri and Darshan Nagar are situated in the District of Faizabad and it is in the cross-examination or the Food Inspector that at the time of taking sample he was Inspector for the entire district of Faizabad. By "niyukti" at Katehri, the Inspector means posting. That was not for the purpose of division of work amongst the Inspectors but he was Food Inspector for the entire district. He could take sample anywhere in the district. It is also in his statement that the Chief Medical Officer has prepared a scheme for special checking and he being the inspector for the entire district was asked to take part in it. Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act says that the Inspector is appointed by Notification in the official Gazette. The Gazette can be available to any one. So the revisionist could have produced that Gazette or could have got it summoned from the department to show that the Inspec tor was not appointed for the entire district. It was not done. So the statement of Food Inspector that he was Inspector for the entire district and he could take sample anywhere in the district is to be accepted. Thus the first argument has no force. 4. It was not done. So the statement of Food Inspector that he was Inspector for the entire district and he could take sample anywhere in the district is to be accepted. Thus the first argument has no force. 4. The second argument is that Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not complied with inasmuch as the copy of report was not sent to the revisionist within the period allowed. In this case there is nothing to show that the revisionist made any request for sample being sent to Director and there is no report of the Director, that the report of the Public Analyst is incorrect and the tobacco was not coloured by the colour which could not be used. Unless an application to send the sample to Director is made, the accused cannot complain that he was deprived of his right given under Section 13 (2) of the Act and prejudice is caused to him. Ajit Prasad Raw Kishan Singh v. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 2 SCC 180 : AIR 1972 SC 1631 . 5. The third argument is that the sample taken by the Inspector was not sent to Analyst but some other material was sent for analysis. This argument is elaborated by saying that in the printed receipt that has been given to the revisionist, it is printed that the sample was taken in three clean bottles, while in other papers and in evidence, it is said that the sample was taken in packets and packets were sent. So, it is argued that the bottle in which sample was taken, was not sent. In the printed receipt "bottles" is printed, because normally these samples may be taken in bottles ; but then throughout there is evidence that the sample was taken and sent in packets and on this point there is no cross- examination. So the evidence that sample was taken in packets and packets were sent, has to be accepted. The revisionist cannot take, benefit of just this omission that in the printed receipt the word bottles was not scored out. While dealing with the cases of Food Adultera tion, the Courts should keep in mind the future injury to be caused and should be slow to quash the prosecution on mere technical irregularities in procedures of directory nature. The revisionist cannot take, benefit of just this omission that in the printed receipt the word bottles was not scored out. While dealing with the cases of Food Adultera tion, the Courts should keep in mind the future injury to be caused and should be slow to quash the prosecution on mere technical irregularities in procedures of directory nature. State of Punjab v. Devinder Kumar, (1983) 2 SCC 384 : AIR 1983 SC 545 . Therefore, I reject the argument of the revisionist. 6. It has also been argued that sealed packets were not put in proper containers and there is no evidence that bottles were properly cleaned. Vio lation of Rule 14 has been alleged. The evidence of the Food Inspector is that according to rules, sample was taken and it was put in sealed packets. There is no cross-examination of this point. In the receipt that was given it was said that bottles were cleaned. Thus nothing has come on record to show that suitable containers were not used as required by Rule 14. In the case of Gopal Das Bahe v. State of Assam, 1979 FAJ 173 (2) (SC), sample of tea was taken and it was put in cloth sacs. The contention that the sealed sacs were not put in proper containers was raised before the Supreme Court for the first time. It was not allowed to be raised because there was nothing on record to show that sealed sac was not put in proper container as required by the rules. In the case before me, in evidence I do not find any thing that container used for sample was not proper and as pointed out earlier, there is no cross-examination on this point. 7. The next argument is that no public witness has been examined in this case and the conviction is based on evidence of the Inspector and employees of the department. The cases of Babu Lal Har govindas v. State of Gujarat, (1971) j. SCC 767 : AIR 1971 SC J277 and Ram Labhaya v. Municipal Corpora tion of Delhi, (1974) 4 SCC 491 : AIR 1974 SC 789 , decided by the Supreme Court can be pointed out for the proposition that conviction on the basis of sole testimony of the Food Inspector is possible. In the case before us there is evidence that the Food Inspector called witnesses but none was ready to be witness of taking of sample. 8. Another argument was that there was no application of mind by the Chief Medical Officer at the time of giving sanction. The Chief Medical Officer has signed the reports of the Food Inspector and other papers showing that they were seen by him. Then he passed the order giving sanction. So there is nothing to show that the Chief Medical Officer did not apply his mind. 9. The last argument is that tabacco is not food and so there can be no conviction for adulterating tabacco. 10. The term food is defined in Section 2 (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It means any article used as food for human con sumption. It also includes any article which is used in preparation of human food or enters into its composition and it also includes any flavouring matter. 11. Anything that is eaten by human being is food in the sense in which common man understands it. Of course, some get an impression that food is something which is essential for growth and it has nutrition. It may be argued that tobacco has no nutrition. It is consumed by human beings all right. The meaning of a term is judged in the background in which a parti cular Act is passed. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act does not seem to have been passed merely for preventing adulteration of articles which are nutritious; rather the intention seems to prevent adulteration of all the articles that the human beings ordinarily consume except drug or water which have been excluded by the definition. Tobacco is something which is consumed by human beings and it is eaten. So it should be food. Moreover it is added as a flavouring matter to betel leaves and it enters into composition of betel leaves. Betel leaves alongwith its components supply nutrition to the human being as it has calcium. So betel leaves can be said to be food and tobacco is an article which enters into composition of betel leaves or flavours it. There fore, tobacco will be food. 12. Betel leaves alongwith its components supply nutrition to the human being as it has calcium. So betel leaves can be said to be food and tobacco is an article which enters into composition of betel leaves or flavours it. There fore, tobacco will be food. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Krishna-murthi, AIR 1980 SC 538 , said that it is enough if the article is generally or commonly used for human consumption or in the preparation of human food. It added that in order to be food for the purposes of the Act, an article need not be fit for human consumption. Since tobacco is used for human consump tion, it will be food keeping this test in view. Supari was taken to be food by the Supreme Court in the case of Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange, AIR 1974 SC 228 . Allahabad High Court in the case of State of U. P v. Shriram Gupta, 1972 All WR (HC) 658, held that tobacco is food. 13. So this last argument of the revisionist also fails. 14. As regards sentence, the learned Magistrate has pointed out that minimum sentence has been given. Probation of Offenders Act is not applicable to this case in view of Section 20-AA of the Prevention of Food Adultera tion Act when the age of the revisionist is not under 18 years. Therefore, sentence also does not require any interference. 15. The revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .