JUDGMENT : K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. - The present Petitioner who was accused in a case numbered as (sic) Case No. 306 of 1983 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack was tried for committing an offence u/s 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The accused himself was the Manager of the depot and in charge of M/s. prag Oil Mills, a sale depot situated at Malgodown, Cuttack. On the complaint of Sri. P.C. Misra, the Food Inspector, Cuttack Municipality, the said case was initiated for alleged violation of Role 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 as well as Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 reads as follows: Rule 50(1) No person shall manufacture, sell, stock, distribute or exhibit for sale any article of food, including prepared food or ready to serve food, except under a licence. x x x x There is no dispute that edible vegetable oils are articles of food. The depot distributes edible vegetable oils and is required to obtain licence within the meaning of Rule 50 of the Food Adulteration Rules referred to earlier. Rule 5 of the Orissa Food Adulteration Rules, 1951 speaks of the jurisdiction of the Food Inspector which is as follows: Rule 5 : Jurisdiction of the Food Inspectors: The jurisdiction of a Food Inspector of the rank of Health Inspector in case of rural area shall be the health range wherein he is posted and in case of a Municipality, Notified Area Council, or Cantonment, the area included within the local limits of the Municipality; Notified Area Councilor Cantonment, as the case may be. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Food Inspector of the rank of Health Inspector in the case of rural area shall be the health range wherein he is posted and in the case of Municipality, Notified Area Council, for Cantonment, area included in the 1001 limits of the Municipality, Notified Area Council as the case may be. 2. Rule 7 of the said Rules deals with a licence for manufacture of food for sale of any articles of food etc. 2. Rule 7 of the said Rules deals with a licence for manufacture of food for sale of any articles of food etc. and fees and condition of licence which reads thus: (1) For every licence for the purpose of manufacturing for sale, any article of food mentioned in Column (1) of each of the table given below, a fee shall be payable at the rate noted against each article in Column (2) of the said table. 3. Table 2, Clause (sic) deals with edible oils. Since the accused person was dealing with the whole sale of edible oils, Table 2, Clause ? was applicable to him as stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the Cuttack Municipality. Under Rule 8 of the said Rule of 1959, if so empowered by the Food (Health) Authority, a District or Municipality Health Officer may grant a licence under the Act. 4. Section 2, Clause (viii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 defines the local authority. Under Section 2, Clause (viii), the local authority in respect of: (1) a local area which is (a) a municipality, the municipal board or municipal corporation; (b) a Cantonment the Cantonment authority; (c) notified area, the notified area committee; (2) any other local area, such authority as may be prescribed by the Central Government or the State Government under this Act. 5. The Petitioner was convicted by the trial Court u/s 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of which to undergo R.I. for a further period of ten days. On appeal before the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, the Sessions Judge by his order dated 7-3-1986 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1985 while maintained the conviction, reduced the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo S.I. for ten days. With the modification of the sentence alone, the appeal was dismissed. 6. The Petitioner has preferred this revision against that order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 7-3-1986 passed in the criminal appeal. 500/- and in default to undergo S.I. for ten days. With the modification of the sentence alone, the appeal was dismissed. 6. The Petitioner has preferred this revision against that order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 7-3-1986 passed in the criminal appeal. His contention was that the business premises were situated in Malgodown area at Cuttack which to the common knowledge forms part of the local area falling within the jurisdiction of the Railway Station, namely, Cuttack Railway station and as such the Petitioner was not required to obtain a licence from the Health Officer of the Cuttack Municipality as required under Rule 50 of the 1959 Rules but had obtained the licence from the Medical Superintendent of the South Eastern Railway, Khurda Road who is empowered to issue such licence for those premises within the Malgodown area of Cuttack. The defence produced a document Ext. D/1, said to have been a circular under the signature of the General Manager, S.E. Railway showing the jurisdiction of Food Inspector stating therein that the food Inspector had jurisdiction from Khurda to Bhubaneswar, Cuttack to Talcher relating to all railway stations, goods-sheds, railway colonies within the railway area, Khurda Road headquarters, loco-colony and goods-shed area. 7. Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 as amended in 1975, by Notification dated 27-9-1975 'local Authority' means: In the case of all railway stations or groups of railway stations (including any railway colony, office, yard, goods-shed, transhipment shed, workshop and other work owned and maintained by the Railway Administration for the purpose or in connection with railways) the Medical Superintendent or Divisional Medical Officer of the Railways in respect of that portion of the local area falling within the jurisdiction of the said railway station or group of railway stations. 8. Therefore, the area where the depots were situated was included in the local area falling within the jurisdiction of Cuttack Railway Station, it was Medical Superintendent or the Divisional Medical Officer of the railways who had the jurisdictional authority in the matter of issuance of licence under Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 8. Therefore, the area where the depots were situated was included in the local area falling within the jurisdiction of Cuttack Railway Station, it was Medical Superintendent or the Divisional Medical Officer of the railways who had the jurisdictional authority in the matter of issuance of licence under Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Only for the area coming within the Cuttack Municipality, the Public Hearth Officer of the Cuttack Municipality is authorised to issue the licence on the present case, the accused person was in possession of a licence issued by the Medical Superintendent of the S E. Railway to continue his business in the premises in question. The accused did not think it necessary to take a licence from the Cuttack Municipality as the area was not within the jurisdiction of the local authority, namely, the Cuttack Municipality. The defence has examined D.W. 1, the Food Inspector of the Railways who said that the area where the depot was situated, was within the control of the S.E. Railways, D.W. 2, the Medical Superintendent of the S.E. Railways, Khurda Road stated that the Malgodown was part of the said Railway station within the South Eastern Railway, more particularly of Cuttack Railway Station. This statement has not been countered by the Cuttack Municipality to show that the area was not actually within the local area falling within the jurisdiction of the said Railway and was exclusively within the control and jurisdiction of the Cuttack Municipality. The prosecution has the onus to prove the guilt of the accused. The criminal Court was not a forum to decide conclusively whether particular area was within the jurisdiction of the Cuttack Municipality or within the jurisdiction of the railways. It is not found from the l.C.R. or from any evidence that was produced in the Court below that Cut tack Municipality made any attempt to find out from the railway authorities if the area was not within the jurisdiction of the railway authority and the Medical Superintendent of the railways had no authority to issue the licence to the owner of a depot. When the accused was in possession of a licence from the railway authorities and it is not certain as to within whose jurisdiction the depot was actually situated, the benefit of doubt should have been granted in favour of the accused. When the accused was in possession of a licence from the railway authorities and it is not certain as to within whose jurisdiction the depot was actually situated, the benefit of doubt should have been granted in favour of the accused. I accordingly set aside the conviction maintained by the Courts below as well as the sentence passed by the appellate Court and acquit the accused of the charge. 9. It is, however, open to the Cuttack Municipality to take such measures as they may think fit to finally determine if the depot and other shops similarly situated are within the Cuttack Municipality. The finding in this case will not stand on the way of such determination. This determination will save the public authorities from entering into unnecessary litigations. The Criminal Revision is, accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed