Judgment : This appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused in C.C.No.576 of 1982 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kulithalai. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: On 6.11.82 P.W.1 Chellappa, the Food Inspector of Karur Municipality inspected the shop of the accused situated in Bharathiar St., Karur wherein he was carrying on business in aerated water under the name and style of “Delux Soda Company.” He found 22 bottles of Soda each containing 200 ml. out of which he purchased 9 bottles after paying sum of Rs.49.50 under the receipt Ex.P2. He divided the 9 bottles into three portions each containing 3 bottles. One portion containing3 bottles was separately packed and sealed as sample No.907. It was sent to the Public Analyst, King Institute, Guindy. The remaining two portions were handed over to the Local authority for safe custody. The analyst gave his opinion stating that the sample contained saccharin in excess of the maximum permitted limit to the extent of 860 p.p. On the basis of the said report, the accused was charged under Secs.7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sec.2(i) and (a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The accused defended the case contending that the procedure adopted by the Food Inspector is against the rules since the 9 bottles purchased by him were not mixed together before dividing the same into three portions for the purpose of sending the same for analysis. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in: Anil Kumar v. Food Inspector, 1982 F.A.J. 47. Another contention was raised by the accused stating that there is no allegation in the Complaint that the presence of excess saccharin was injurious to health. 3. Both the contentions raised on behalf of the accused were accepted by the learned Magistrate and, therefore, the accused was acquitted. Hence the present appeal by the State. 4. Mr.A.S. Chakravarthi, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State submitted that the procedure adopted by the Food Inspector is in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules. Hence the present appeal by the State. 4. Mr.A.S. Chakravarthi, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State submitted that the procedure adopted by the Food Inspector is in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules. He relied on Rule 22-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 which reads as follows: "22-A. Contents of one or more similar Sealed containers having identical labels to constitute the quantity of a food sample: Where food is sold or slocked for sale or for distribution in scaled containers having identical label declaration, the contents of one or more of each containers as may be required to satisfy the quantity prescribed in Rule 22 shall be treated to be part of the sample." On the basis of this Rule, he submitted that the soda bottles recovered from the accused were closed and therefore it was not necessary for the Food Inspector to mix the contents of the bottles and then divide the mixture into three portions. In answer to the said contention, Mr.Gopinathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused submitted that the Food Inspector has not proved the manner in which the soda bottles were closed or sealed. He pointed out that the word "sealed" found in Rule 22-A would not take in the closure of soda bottles either by closed balls or by corks. The terms ‘sealed’ has got its special significance and therefore, unless the soda bottles come within the definition, the procedure adopted by the Food Inspector must be held to be invalid. He relied on the decision referred to above. In State of Kerala v. K.S. Balakrishnan, 1973 Crl.L.J 1554. High Court had an occasion to consider the meaning of the word ‘sealed’ container. He relied on the decision referred to above. In State of Kerala v. K.S. Balakrishnan, 1973 Crl.L.J 1554. High Court had an occasion to consider the meaning of the word ‘sealed’ container. The terms "Sealed Container’ is not defined in the Act, while the word ‘Package’ is defined in Sec.2(x) of the Act as follows: "Package" means a box bottle, casket, tin barrel, case receptacle sark, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article of food is placed or packed." In the Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Third Edition, the meaning given to the word ‘Sealed’ is "secured with any substance without the destruction of which the cork, plug or stopper cannot be withdrawn." In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, it is stated that the expression "sealed container" means a container which is so closed that access (to its contents) is impossible without breaking the fastening. After taking note of these definitions, the Kerala High Court, adopted the meaning given in the Oxford Dictionary and held that there should be clear evidence in the case to show that the coffee powder was packed is such container. The Court also took note of the fact that F.W.I examined in this case did not depose to the fact that the containers were sealed. 5. On a careful consideration of the rival submissions made in this appeal, I find that the main point to be decided is whether the bottles purchased from the accused would come under the meaning of "Sealed containers found in Rule 22-A of the Rules framed under the Act. Unfortunately, in this case, P.W.1 has not statedanything about the manner in which the bottles were sealed or closed. The object of the Act seems to be that bottle or packet should be so sealed which cannot be otherwise opened them by damaging the seal. There is absolutely no material available in this case to come to the conclusion that the bottles were sealed as contemplated under Rule 22-A of the Rules. In the absence of such evidence it is not possible to hold that the provisions contained under Rule 22-A would be applicable to the facts of the present case. Even if the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is accepted, there is no evidence in this case that the packets were closed so that access to it was not possible without breaking. Even if the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is accepted, there is no evidence in this case that the packets were closed so that access to it was not possible without breaking. The Kerala High Court rightly held that ‘closed containers’ are not synonymous with sealed containers’. The Rule making authority had deliberately used the word sealed containers’ with a particular purpose and therefore the accused is entitled to seek the protection of Court when the prosecution has failed to bring the case within Rule 22-A. In these circumstances certainly the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and therefore, I do not see any grounds to interfere with the finding necessary to consider the second point raised by the accused before the trial Court. 6. In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.