Judgment : 1. This appeal by the State is filed against the acquittal of the respondent tried by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur for an offence under Secs. 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sec.2(ia)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. P.W.1 the Food Inspector, Pullambadi took a sample of Gingelly Oil from the grocery shop of the respondent in Tirumalappadi Road. The formalities required under the Act were complied with. On analysis, it was found that the sample did not conform to the standards of Gingelly oil in respect of Bellier Test and Value and also that the sample answered the test for the presence of castor oil. Hence the prosecution. 3. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, the Food Inspector was examined as P.W-1 and Exs. P1 to P-10 were marked. The respondent when questioned, denied having committed any crime. He had no evidence to offer. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent on the ground that Rule 19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which require addition of preservatives to samples should be read along with Rules 58 and 59, dealing with anti-oxidants to food and on a combined reading, the Food Inspector is required to add anti-oxidants to the sample of edible oil and as such failure to do the same, would entitle the respondent to an acquittal. Challenging the acquittal, the State has filed this appeal. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that while Rule 19 relates to addition of preservatives to the sample taken for analysis, it has no reference to Rules 58 and 59, which are meant to govern the use of anti-oxidants in the preparation of food or in its preservation for sale. The acquittal, therefore was erroneous. The law has to be set right and the appeal has to be allowed. 5. Per contra, Thiru I.Mahaboob Sheriff, learned counsel for the respondent would ‘contend that even if the court found the legal ground for acquittal to be erroneous, the acquittal need not be set aside at this length of time, to impose any sentence on the respondent, but that the law, could be set right and the appeal disposed of. 6. The question that arises for consideration is whether the acquittal of the respondent could be sustained. 7. The sample taken is Gingelly oil. 6. The question that arises for consideration is whether the acquittal of the respondent could be sustained. 7. The sample taken is Gingelly oil. According to the learned Magistrate, Rule 19 requires preservatives to be added by the Food Inspector to the sample taken and Rule 59 permits addition of anti-oxidants to edible oil mentioned in the proviso to the Rule in the percentage of the concentration mentioned therein. The learned Magistrate has hold that Rules 19,58 and 59 read with together require the Food Inspector to add antioxidants to edible oil and failure to do the same entitled the respondent for an acquittal. The above position of law is totally erroneous. Rule 19 permits addition of preservatives as prescribed from time to time to samples taken for the purpose of analysis, so that the sample may be maintained in a condition suitable for analysis. Rule 20 deals with the preservative in respect of milk, cream and other samples mentioned therein. Rule 21 requires the nature and quantity of the preservative to be noted on the sample. Part X of the Rules, deals with preservatives which are defined, classified and the use of which, is also regulated. Part XII of the Rules dealing with Anti-oxidants Emulsifying and Stabilising and Anticaking agents, has nothing to do with samples taken for analysis. Rules 58 and 59 define and restrict the use of antioxidants in the preparation and manufacture of food for sale. Similarly Part XI deals with poisonous metals, Part XI-A deals with crop contaminants and naturally occurring toxic substances, Part XIII-A carry over of food additives, and Part XIV deals with insecticides and pesticides. All these parts relate to preparation and manufacture of food for sale. They do not have any relation to taking or preserving a sample for analysis. The learned Magistrate was wrong in linking Rule 19 with Rules 58 and 59. The acquittal is erroneous. 8. The sample had been taken in the year 1985 and more than six years have passed. It is not necessary to set aside the acquittal and to impose the minimum sentence. The law is set right and the appeal is dismissed.