JUDGMENT 1. - This judgment will dispose of the above numbered two cases. The first criminal revision filed by the accused petitioner Vasudeo and others (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 161/1983) and the other filed by the State against Nand Lal, against whom in exercise of the suo moto powers of revision under Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. read with Sec. 397 Cr.P.C. the court had issued a notice.The facts are these : 2. The business premises of the accused petitioner Vasudeo namely M/s Jagdamba Kirana Store, Kota were inspected by the Food Inspector PW 1 Shri O.P. Paul on 21st September 1976. At that time Vasudeo the accused petitioner in one of the criminal revision was present at the shop. The Food Inspector suspected that the 'Maida' which was meant for sale at the shop of the accused petitioner was adulterated and, therefore, by form No. VI the Food Inspector informed that he wants to take sample for analysis. He paid the price and purchased 600 gms. of Maida which was taken out from a sealed gunny bag and the same was divided into three parts. Label No. 448 was marked on each of the sample, and each of the sample was wrapped and sealed in the presence of the Motbirs. One of the sample duly sealed was sent to the public analyst. It was given out by Vasudeo the accused petitioner that vide bill No. 386 and 383 he has received the gunny bags of maida from which sample was taken and other bags in all numbering 160 from Ganpati Roller Flour Mills Ltd., Bharatpur. He also produced Ex.P. 3 and P. 4 the vouchers and the purchase of 360 bags of Maida from other manufacturers. On analysis the public analyst found that the sample of Maida does not conform the prescribed standard of purety. After receiving the consent of the local authorities the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector against the accused petitioner and its manufacturer Shri Nand Gopal who was proprietor of M/s Ganpati Roller and Flour Mill, Bharatpur. When the case was pending trial an application was filed on behalf of the manufacturer that the other sample in the court may be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory and application was allowed. When the case was pending trial an application was filed on behalf of the manufacturer that the other sample in the court may be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory and application was allowed. The Director, Central Food Laboratory under its report dated 9th May 1977 found that the sample of Maida does not conform the standard prescribed P.F.F. Rules. It was of the opinion that it was adulterated. 3. The accused petitioner and Nand Gopal were tried and after the statements of O.P. Paul was recorded a charge under Article 1 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the charge was framed against each of them. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under its judgment dated 7th April 1981 convicted the accused petitioner Vasudeo but so far as Nand Gopal the manufacturer is concerned, he acquitted him. The accused petitioner Vasudeo filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge who dismissed the appeal under its judgment dated 26th March, 1983. 4. When the revision petition was filed before this court, G.M. Lodha J. as he then was under its order dated 6-5-1987 exercised suo moto power of revision and issued notice to the accused petitioner Nand Gopal as to why the order of acquittal against him be not set aside and he cannot be convicted and punished of the said offence. 5. The first contention of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner is that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was handling agent appointed by the Collector (supplies) and under the agreement entered into in between him and Collector (Supplies) on 11th March, 1976 (Ex.D. 2) an indent was placed with the Collector/D.S.O. (Supply) and on the issue of permits the petitioner used to sell the Food Grains including Maida and Petitioner was only entitled to the commission in the handling as aforesaid. He further contends that when the Food Inspector had visited the premises of petitioner the petitioner had given the original bills of the Maida which had been not to and purchased from M/s Ganpati Roller Flour Mill, Bharatpur and the sample was taken from one gunny bag. So far as the petitioner is concerned, by virtue of Sec. 14 read with Sec. 19 of the P.F. Act, the petitioner did not commit offence and it was the manufacturer who was responsible for the commission of the offence u/s 7/16 of the P.F. Act. So far as the petitioner is concerned, by virtue of Sec. 14 read with Sec. 19 of the P.F. Act, the petitioner did not commit offence and it was the manufacturer who was responsible for the commission of the offence u/s 7/16 of the P.F. Act. 6. A similar defence was raised on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Trial Court and the learned trial court dealing with the aforesaid submission made before it, under its judgment dated 7th April 1981 has said at page 6 of the judgment that there is no proof that the gunny bag from which the sample of Maida was taken had been sent by M/s Ganpati Roller & Flour Mills, Bharatpur to Vasudeo, the accused petitioner and was sent for sale. He has also observed that it is also not proved that the gunny bag from which the sample was taken was bearing the marka 'Ganpati Flour Mill'. Dealing with the case of Vasudeo and Ex.P. 3 and P. 4, the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate observed this the accused petitioner Vasudeo cannot draw any advantage out of them. The learned C.J.M. said that the petitioner cannot draw any advantage from Ex.P. 3 and P. 4 as from the statement of the Food Inspector it is not proved that the gunny bag from which the sample was taken was the same which was sent to the accused petitioner under Ex P. 3 and P. 4. The learned C.J.M. also referred to the statement of Bhagchand, Munim of Vasudeo. Bhagchand Munim was examined as P.W. 2 and he admits in his statement that the time when the inspection was conducted by the Food Inspector there was already stock of 5 to 7 gunny bags. In my opinion from the record it cannot be said that the gunny bag from which sample was taken was not out of 180 gunny bags of Maida which had been received by the petitioner under Ex. P 3 and P. 4. A look at the complaint filed by the Ford Inspector will show that the gunny bag from which the sample was taken had been received by the petitioner Vasudeo from M/s Ganpati Roller Flour Mill, Bharatpur. P 3 and P. 4. A look at the complaint filed by the Ford Inspector will show that the gunny bag from which the sample was taken had been received by the petitioner Vasudeo from M/s Ganpati Roller Flour Mill, Bharatpur. A look on the statement of Bhagchand PW 2 will several that he has not stated that the sample was taken from gunny bag which had been received earlier and a perusal of the statement will show that he had made a categorical statement that sample was taken from the gunny bag received on that very day from Ganpati Roller Flour Mill, Bharatpur. The learned C.J.M. misread the statement of Bhagchand, when he said that Bhagchand admits that the gunny bags were lying in stick and it is possible that the sample of Maida was taken from the stock already lying. A look at the statement of Bhagc and will further show that the accused had handed over P. 3 and P. 4 to the Food Inspector who had taken sample of Maida and it was given that 160 bags had been received. Bhagchand state that Maida was not sold in retail and was only on the permit issued by the D.S.O. He also states that Vasudeo used to sell Maida on commission which was to be paid by supply department and on the gunny bags the name of manufacturer was always given. He also states that on the bag from which sample was taken the Marka of Ganpati Roller Flour Mill had been written. He also stated that gunny bags were in the same conditions in which they had been received. As and when the goods are received they are unloaded in the godown nearby. He also states that Maida was received on that very day and same was unloaded in the shop and other at the godown. It will appear that Bhagchand had no where stated that on the day sample was taken there were other than 160 gunny bags which were received from Ganpati Roller Flour Mill. He also states that Maida was received on that very day and same was unloaded in the shop and other at the godown. It will appear that Bhagchand had no where stated that on the day sample was taken there were other than 160 gunny bags which were received from Ganpati Roller Flour Mill. As stated earlier, the learned C.J.M. misread the statement of Bhagchand, if that be so, it can be said that the sample of Maida was taken on the day of inspection from one of gunny bags out of 160 gunny bags which had been received on that very day on the shop of the petitioner from Bhagchand the manufacture of the same. Even the learned C.J.M. has come to the conclusion that the sample was taken from one of the gunny bags which had the marka 'Ganpati Roller Flour Mill'. But as stated earlier he mislead the statement of Bhagchand and concluded that there were other bags also of the same manufacturer and it is possible that the sample might have been taken from those bags. The learned C. J. M. held that the manufacturer would not be responsible and the accused petitioner was responsible. 7. A look at Sec. 14 of the P.F. Act will show that it imposes an obligation on a manufacturer or a distributor or a dealer when he sells any article of food to a vendor to give him in writing a warranty in the prescribed form about the nature and quality of such article. Under the proviso to Sec. 14 it is provided that a bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in, such article to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer, distributor or dealer under this Section. It can therefore, be said that in Ex. P. 3 and P. 4 under which 160 gunny bags were sent to the petitioner by M/s Ganpati Roller Flour Mills, warranty was given by the manufacturer to the petitioner about the nature and quality of the Maida. Under Sub-sec. It can therefore, be said that in Ex. P. 3 and P. 4 under which 160 gunny bags were sent to the petitioner by M/s Ganpati Roller Flour Mills, warranty was given by the manufacturer to the petitioner about the nature and quality of the Maida. Under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 19 of the P.F. Act, a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves:- (a) that he purchased the article of food- (i) in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof, from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer; (ii) in any other case, from any manufacturer, distributor or dear, with a written warranty in the prescribed form. 8. By virtue of Sec. 19 of the P.F. Act it can be said that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he did not commit any offence even if the article of food was adulterated. But it is the manufacturer who sold Maida under Ex. P.3 and P. 4, who committed an offence u/s 16 of the P. F. Act if article of food i.e. Maida was found to be adulterated and was not of the prescribed standard of purety. 9. Having said so that vendor cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 3/16 of the P. F. Act for the reasons as aforesaid, the question immediately arises as to whether in exercise of powers of revision the manufacture should be punished ? There can be no dispute and it can hardly be disputed that on account of the report of Director, Central Laboratory the sample taken from gunny bags and sent for the analysis was found to be adulterated. Therefore Nand Gopal the proprietor of M/s Ganpati Roller Flour Mill, Bharatpur committed offence u/s 3/16 of the P.F. Act. But the question is that after a lapse of 13 years from the date on which sample was taken and after a lapse of more than 8 years after the judgment of learned C.J.M. in which accused petitioner Nand Gopal was acquitted and no state appeal was filed before this court should Nand Gopal proprietor of M/s Ganpati Roller Flour Mill, Bharatpur be convicted and sentenced. The Supreme Court and this court has taken a view that after a lapse of so many years as in this case, suo moto discretion of this court to convict the accused should not be exercised. I am of the opinion that despite the fact that Nand Gopal had committed an offence u/s 7/16 of the P.F. Act, after a lapse of 8 years since acquittal was recorded by the learned C.J.M. it will not be proper and in the interest of Justice to convict Nand Gopal and sentenced him. 10. Consequently, I hereby allow the Criminal Revision No. 116/1983 Vasudeo v. State set aside the judgment of the District Judge and learned C.J.M. and he is acquitted of the charge and he is on bail, he shall surrender the bail bonds. 11. The criminal revision No. 161/1987 which was registered for suo moto power of revision of this court for the reasons aforesaid is dismissed. *******