DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) ). The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned chief Judicial Magistrate of Bulsar at Navsari on 29/11/1983 in criminal Case No. 1925 of 1982 as affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional sessions Judge of Bulsar at Navsari on 29/03/1984 in Criminal Appeal no. 73 of 1983 is under challenge in this revisional application preferred by the original accused. ( 2 ) ). The facts giving rise to this revisional application are not many and not much in dispute. Respondent No. 1 herein went to the shop of the present petitioner and purchased from him an article of food by the name of Khajur with silver leaf coated thereon by way of sample in the required quantity. He divided the sample into three parts. He placed each part in a plastic polyethylene bag. Each bag was properly packed and sealed after placing the memorandum in Form No. 7 as required. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst for his analysis and report. The report of the Public Analyst on analysis of the sample indicated that the silver leaf as coated on Khajur did not contain any silver but it contained only aluminium. In other words, in the name of silver what was used was aluminium. According to the report of the Public Analyst, the component of the silver leaf found in the sample was not in consonance with the standard prescribed therefor under the law. The case papers were put up before the Assistant Director and Local Health Authority, Food and drugs Control Administration, Surat for sanctioning the prosecution against the present petitioner. The sanctioning authority, by his order passed on 29/03/1982, accorded his sanction to prosecute the petitioner. Thereupon respondent No. 1 herein filed his complaint before the learned Chief Judicial magistrate of Bulsar at Navsari charging the petitioner with the offences punishable under Sec. 7 (i) and Sec. 16 (l) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act for brief ). It came to be registered as criminal Case No. 1925 of 1982. The petitioner as the accused did not plead guilty to the charge. Thereupon he came to be tried. After the prosecution evidence was recorded, his further statement came to be recorded. It came to be registered as criminal Case No. 1925 of 1982. The petitioner as the accused did not plead guilty to the charge. Thereupon he came to be tried. After the prosecution evidence was recorded, his further statement came to be recorded. After hearing the parties, by his judgment and order passed on 2 9/11/1983 in Criminal Case No. 1925 of 1982, the learned Chief judicial Magistrate of Bulsar at Navsari was pleased to convict the petitioner of the offence punishable under Sec. 15 (l) (a) (i) of the Act and to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment of six months and to fine of Rs. 2. 000/ -in default of which simple imprisonment of three months. The aggrieved accused carried the matter in appeal before the Session Court at Bulsar. His appeal came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1983. It came to be assigned to the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bulsar at Navsari. By his judgment and order passed on 29/03/1984 in criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1983, the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bulsar at Navsari was pleased to dismiss the appeal. The aggrieved accused has thereupon invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court for questioning the correctness of the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the Courts below. ( 3 ) ). Shri Shah for the petitioner has urged before me several submissions in support of this revisional application. The one which has appealed to me most is that no standard for pan-masala has been prescribed and, in absence of any evidence on record to the effect that aluminium leaf was injurious to health, use of such leaf for coating Khajur would not make that article of food adulterated. In support of his submission Shri shah has relied on the ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ramkishan Gangadin Yadav, reported in 1980 (II) FAC 107. As against this, Shri Dave for respondent No. 2-State and shri Patel for respondent No. 1 (the original complainant) have submitted that silver leaf used by the present petitioner for selling the article of food in question was not conforming to the prescribed standard, and as such it would render the article of food in question adulterated. As against this, Shri Dave for respondent No. 2-State and shri Patel for respondent No. 1 (the original complainant) have submitted that silver leaf used by the present petitioner for selling the article of food in question was not conforming to the prescribed standard, and as such it would render the article of food in question adulterated. Both of them have tried to distinguish the aforesaid ruling of the Bombay high Court in the case of Ramkishau ffaigadin Yadav (supra) on the basis of the facts involved therein. ( 4 ) ). It is an admitted position that no prescribed standard for panmasala was prescribed on the date of the collection of the sample by respondent No. 1 herein. What was sold by the present petitioner to respondent no. 1 herein was Khajur. It was stated to be coated with silver leaf. The Public Analyst in his report has nowhere stated that the main article of food, that is, Khajur, was found adulterated. What the Public Analyst found was that the silver leaf used presumably for coating the article of food in question did not conform to its prescribed standard. The article of food in question was considered to be adulterated only on that account. ( 5 ) ). Even at the cost of repetition, I reiterate that there was no prescribed standard for pan-masala at the relevant time. The main article of food was Khajur. Silver leaf appears to have been used to coat it presumably for decorative purpose. Instead of silver leaf what was found was aluminium leaf. It is not the prosecution case that the use of aluminium leaf to coat Khajur was in any way injurious to the health of its consumer. As rightly submitted by Shri Patel and Shri Dave for the respondents, there was no occasion for anyone to opine whether or not the use of aluminium leaf for coating Khajur was injurious to health or not. That fact however would not absolve the prosecution from its requirement to bring the guilt home to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It may be mentioned at this stage that the petitioner did not sell silver leaf as an article of food. What was sold was Khajur though coaled with what was stated to be silver leaf. It is not in dispute that silver leaf is not an essential component or ingredient of Khajur. It may be mentioned at this stage that the petitioner did not sell silver leaf as an article of food. What was sold was Khajur though coaled with what was stated to be silver leaf. It is not in dispute that silver leaf is not an essential component or ingredient of Khajur. As indicated earlier, it was presumably used to coat Khajur for decorative purpose. In that view of the matter, it was not very material whether or not the so-colled silver leaf used to coat the article of food in question conform to its prescribed standard under the law. The article of food could have been branded adulterated if what was used to coat it was found injurious to the health of its consumer. ( 6 ) ). Again, silver leaf if used to coat an article of food for any purpose would not conform to its prescribed standard under Entry A. 27. 01 in appendix b to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (the rules for brief) framed under the Act. It has been prescribed thereunder that silver leaf shall be in the form of sheets free from creases and folds and shall contain not less than 99. 9 per cent of silver. If Silver leaf is used to coat an article of food, there will be bound to be creases and in that case it might not conform to its prescribed standard as contained in Entry A. 27. 01 in Appendix b to the Rules. In this view of the matter, I think it was not necessary for the Public Analyst or for that matter for the complainant to see whether or not the so-called silver leaf used to coat Khajur did or did not conform to the prescribed standard of silver leaf. ( 7 ) ). The use of aluminium leaf styled as silver leaf for coaling khajur would at the most be misbranding of that article as defined in sec. 2 (ix) (e) of the Act. The prosecution has not come to the Court with the case that the petitioner was guilty of misbranding the article of food. ( 8 ) ). In the case of Ramkishan Gangadin Yadav (supra) the Bombay High court was concerned with a similar fact situation. 2 (ix) (e) of the Act. The prosecution has not come to the Court with the case that the petitioner was guilty of misbranding the article of food. ( 8 ) ). In the case of Ramkishan Gangadin Yadav (supra) the Bombay High court was concerned with a similar fact situation. In that case also, from the accused the sample of burn coated with silver leaf was recovered and what was found was that it was coated with aluminium leaf styled as silver leaf. In that context it has been held :"in addition to this, there is an important feature. The public analyst has, in terms, admitted in his evidence that the Aluminium foil is not injurious to health and it is rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents that there is no prohibition as such under the rules or under the Act to use Aluminium foil and unless such a prohibition is incorporated in the enactment, user of such Aluminium foil which is not injurious to health by itself, would not amount to adulteration. No such prohibition is cited before me and, on the contrary, the tenor of the evidence of the public analyst, by itself, indicates that there is no such prohibition. If that be so, then, it is not understood as to how the commodity can be said to be adulterated within the meaning of the said section. It is also worth-noting that by some reasoning, this may be treated as a case of misbranding, inasmuch as the receipt issued by the accused No. 2 clearly mentioned that he had sold mawa Burn with silver foil, whereas, on analysis, instead of silver foil, it was actually found to be Aluminium foil. However, there is no charge in that behalf and not only that but, even the complaint does not reflect on that aspect. In view of this, it is not necessary for this Court to go into details in that behalf. Suffice it to say and I must observe that the charge as it is must fail on the basis of the prosecution evidence itself, and the order of acquittal will have to be confirmed, though for entirely different reasons. "with respect, I am in full agreement with the view expressed by the bombay High Court in its aforesaid ruling in the case of Ramkishan Gangadin yadav (supra ). "with respect, I am in full agreement with the view expressed by the bombay High Court in its aforesaid ruling in the case of Ramkishan Gangadin yadav (supra ). This ruling is on all fours applicable in the present case. Here also in the name of silver leaf what was used was aluminium leaf to coat the article of food in question. The learned Advocate for respondent no. 1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 2 have not been able to show to me any prohibition against use of aluminium leaf to coat any article of food. It is not shown to be injurious to health. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the use of aluminium leaf instead of silver leaf to coat an article of food by itself would not render that article to be adulterated. ( 9 ) ). The aforesaid ruling of the Bombay High Court cannot be distinguished on the ground that the Public Analyst in that case had clearly opined that use of aluminium leaf to coat the article of food in question was not injurious to health as sought to be distinguished by Shri Patel and shri Dave for the respondents before me. It must be remembered that it was the prosecution case that the article of food in question was adulterated and it had to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and as such it was for the prosecution to bring on record the fact that the use of aluminium leaf to coat the article of food in question was injurious to the health of its consumer. ( 10 ) ). In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the accused by the Courts below under Sec. 7 (i) of the Act cannot be sustained in law. It deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 11 ) ). In the result, this revisional application is accepted. The judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bulsar at Navsari on 29/11/1983 in Criminal Case No. 1925 of 1982 as affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bulsar at Navsari on 29/03/1984 in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1983 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. His bail bonds are cancelled. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. His bail bonds are cancelled. The fine, if paid, is ordered to be refunded. Rule is accordingly made absolute. .