D. M. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner at the first instance was convicted by the S. D. J. M. , Rairakhol for an offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and on appeal, the learned Sessions Judge reduced the sentence to three months' R. I. ( 2 ) THE allegation against the petitioner was that, on 6-2-1991 when the Food Inspector, Sambalpur (P. W. 2) visited the grocery shop of the petitioner he found him to have exposed adulterated Jeera for sale for human consumption. The petitioner in his defence denied his knowledge of any adulteration. Both the Courts below on the basis of Ext. 12, the report of the Public Analyst showing that the quality of the article fell slightly below the prescribed standard, held that it was adulterated and that the petitioner committed the offence. ( 3 ) THE main thrust of argument of Mr. N. C. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner is that a reference to the definition of Section 2 (i) "adulterate" would show that the petitioner committed no offence at all. It is clear from the explanation to the first proviso of Section 2 that where two or more articles of primary food are mixed together and the resultant article of food is stored, sold or distributed under a name which denotes the ingredients thereof and is not injuries to health, then such resultant article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this clause. 'primary food', has been defined to mean, any article of food being a produce of agriculture or horticulture in its natural form. ( 4 ) MR. Pati, referring to Ext. 12, submits that the report indicates that edible seeds other than cumin seeds were mixed with Jeera and was 5. 8 per cent by weight. There is great force in the contention of Mr. Pati since there was mixture of edible seeds with Jeera in question, this cannot be an adulterated food as held by the Courts below. Further the report (Ext. 12) did not indicate that the food article was injurious to health. 8 per cent by weight. There is great force in the contention of Mr. Pati since there was mixture of edible seeds with Jeera in question, this cannot be an adulterated food as held by the Courts below. Further the report (Ext. 12) did not indicate that the food article was injurious to health. In the absence of any opinion that the article was adulterated merely because the same was mixed with edible seeds should not bring it with the rigours of definition of 'adulterated food'. ( 5 ) THE judgments of the Courts below being erroneous are liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision is allowed. The judgments of the Courts below are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge. The bail bond furnished stood discharged. Revision allowed.