JUDGMENT A.L. Vaidya, J.—The Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh in exercise of the powers under section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be called as “the Act) vide Notification No. HFW B(A)12-7/83. dated 30th August, 1983, imposed a ban on use and sale of non-iodised salt throughout the Himachal Pradesh, with immediate effect. 2. The present petitioner was running a shop in village Dobi, in District Kullu On 13-3-1990 the Food Inspector visited the business premises of the petitioner, where the petitioner had kept for sale 36 packets of Tarn Tam brand of Iodised salt each packet was weighing 1 k.g. of the said Iodised salt The Food Inspector in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder purchased 600 grams of the alleged Iodised salt, from one of the packets, against cash payment and the salt so purchased was divided into three parts and sealed as per procedure. One of the sealed sample was sent to the public analyst, on the basis of whose report the contents of the sample were opined to be of non-iodised common salt and not of iodised salt. According to the Public Analyst, the use and sale of non iodised salt had been banned throughout the Himachal Pradesh vide Government Notification No. HFW-B(A) 2-7/83, dated 30-8 1983, The result of the analysis was as under: “Description : The contents of the sample received in a glass bottle. Iodine as Iodide=Absent. Iodine as Io date=Absent. NaCl dry basis = 96.74%. Water soluble matter other than NaCl =2.70%. Moisture =3.12% Water Insoluble matter = 0.56%," 3. The accused-petitioner was sent information under section 13 (2) of the Act and thereafter the complaint was preferred before the trial Magistrate, after obtaining sanction for the same. 4. The defence of the accused as disclosed by him, when he was examined under section 313, Cr.P.C. has been that he had kept the salt for cattle and for other purposes. However, he has admitted that the Food Inspector visited his shop. The accused also examined one witness in the defence 5. 4. The defence of the accused as disclosed by him, when he was examined under section 313, Cr.P.C. has been that he had kept the salt for cattle and for other purposes. However, he has admitted that the Food Inspector visited his shop. The accused also examined one witness in the defence 5. The trial Magistrate after recording the evidence, convicted the accused under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs 1000 and in default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 6. The aforesaid conviction and sentence were assailed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, on various pleas. The Appellate Court after hearing the parties, maintained the conviction as well as the sentence passed by the trial Magistrate. 7. The aforesaid conviction and sentence passed by the trial Magistrate and maintained by the Appellate Court have been assailed in the present revision petition on various grounds. 8. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner can be summarised as under : 1. The State Government has taken a decision to withdraw the prosecution of such like cases which included the present case also and on that account conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner has to be set aside. 2. The petitioner before the trial Court preferred an application under section 20 (A) of the Act, with the prayer that the dealer/commission agent M/s Shyam Sunder and Brothers, Majith Mandi, Amritsar, be also summoned and be impleaded as co-accused, which application had wrongly been disallowed by the trial Magistrate, which has not only prejudiced the defence of the accused but the entire trial. 3. That the Food Inspector has not taken the representative sample of salt and as such violated the statutory provisions in this behalf. 4. That the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity as require ed under section 13 (2) of the Act so as to get analyse the retained sample from the Director Central Food Laboratory and this has vitiated not only the trial but in a way taken the statutory right of the accused without any fault of his. 5. The defence of the accused has not been properly appreciated. 9. 5. The defence of the accused has not been properly appreciated. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the letter of Commission-cum-Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, addressed to the Director Health Service, Himachal Pradesh, with respect to withdrawal of salt cases from the court. For-the sake of convenience, that letter is being reproduced hereunder : "No. HFW-8(A) 3-1/81-IV Government of Himachal Pradesh, Health and Family Welfare Department. From Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. To The Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171009. Dated Shimla-171002, the 15th March, 1997. Subject: Withdrawal of Salt cases from the Court. Sir, 1 am directed to say that under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 minimum iodine contents have been prescribed 15 PPM in the salt. Accordingly, under the above Act, salt cases deducted having iodine contents less than prescribed standard are pending in the courts against the whole salers/ retailers At present the iodised salt is freely entering the state packed in ordinary gunny bags with the result that most of the iodine evapourate in transit and storage at different points and at least petty shopkeepers are not responsible to some extent for selling salt having Jess iodine contents that the prescribed limit Taking a lenient view in this matter and to avoid undue inconvenience to such petty shopkeepers, the matter to withdraw court cases pending against them was under consideration of the Government and the following decisions have been taken :— (i) It has been decided to withdraw all cases from the courts in which prosecution proceedings have been lunched due to less iodine contents than the prescribed. However, the cases where prosecution proceedings hive been launched for selling non iodised salt would continue in the courts and will not be withdrawn. (ii) In future only prosecution proceedings will be initiated against those shopkeepers etc who are found selling salts having less than 10 PPM iodine notwithstanding the provisions of minimum 15 PPM requirement in the Act. This has been decided in view of the fact that even statute recognises that iodine evaporates in due course of time. (iii) No prosecution proceedings shall be initiated against those shopkeepers for selling non-iodised salt if such salt happened to be rock salt or Pakistan Sindhur Salt) which are largely used for the consumption of cattle. This has been decided in view of the fact that even statute recognises that iodine evaporates in due course of time. (iii) No prosecution proceedings shall be initiated against those shopkeepers for selling non-iodised salt if such salt happened to be rock salt or Pakistan Sindhur Salt) which are largely used for the consumption of cattle. (iv) Department of Food and Supplies would explore the possibility and ensure that expiry date printed/endorsed on the bags/packs of salt. You are therefore, requested to take further action in the light of above decision of the Government and furnish the detailed report in this behalf immediately. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Deputy Secretary (Health) to the Government of H.P. Endst. No. HFW-8 (A) 3-1/8MV Dated Shimla-2, the l5th March 1997. Copy forwarded to All the Chief Medical Officers in HP. for taking immediate necessary action m the light of above decision and ensure compliance. Copy to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary Food and Supplies to the Government of H.P. for kind information and necessary action please. Sd/- Deputy Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh " 10. It has been argued on the basis of the aforesaid decision of the State Government that the present conviction has to be set aside, especially when the State Government has taken the decision in this particular behalf. This submission has simply to be rejected on two grounds, 11. Simply because the State Government has taken some decision for withdrawing the prosecution, such a decision will not be binding on the court at ail and otherwise also, withdrawal from the prosecution is to be made under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires Public Prosecutor incharge of a case to apply for such a withdrawal of prosecution of any person with the consent of the court, at any time before the judgment was pronounced, either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which that person is tried. 12. In the present case, the procedure as referred under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has not been complied with. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing has represented that he has not received any instruction from the State Government to act in that manner. 13. 12. In the present case, the procedure as referred under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has not been complied with. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing has represented that he has not received any instruction from the State Government to act in that manner. 13. Otherwise also, the present case does not come within the ambit of the aforesaid decision of the State Government, The sample under reference as per the Public Analyst report did not contain at all any quantity of Iodine in any form, meaning thereby the sample was opined to be not an iodised salt. The State Governments decision for withdrawing the prosecution pertained with respect to those cases in which the iodine contents were less than the prescribed standard. As pointed out the present sample did not contain any iodine contents at all and as such/ there was no question of having less iodine contents. 14. The present accused before the trial Magistrate, filed an application under section 20-A of the Act with the prayer that the dealer/Commission Agents M/s Shyam Sunder and Brothers, Majith Mandi, Amritsar, be summoned and be impleaded as co-accused. In that application it was also pleaded that M/s. Shyam Sunder and Brothers, Majith Mandi, Amritsar, were the dealers /com mission agents and the salt in question was purchased by the accused from the aforesaid firm against a bill and thus they were responsible for any sub-standard. It was also pleaded that the bill would be produced as and when directed by the court. The accused also pleaded that since the salt was purchased against the bill and under section 14 of the Act, they were to give warranty and therefore they were responsible for the offences, if any. 15. This application, after examining evidence in this behalf was disallowed by the trial Magistrate vide order dated 11th April, 1991 The reasons given by the trial Magistrate in disallowing this application were correct and do not require any interference by this court. 16. 15. This application, after examining evidence in this behalf was disallowed by the trial Magistrate vide order dated 11th April, 1991 The reasons given by the trial Magistrate in disallowing this application were correct and do not require any interference by this court. 16. Admittedly, the bill sought to be produced afterwards by the accused was not produced at all, but instead Ex A-l was produced which was goods receipts dated 4th December, 1989 wherein five bags of common salt has been referred weighing 2-50 quintals of the value of Rs 275 Regarding the bill the accused stated that the bill was with him which was taken by M/s. Shyam Sunder and Brothers, from him after making representation that the same would be given back after correction Admittedly, the bill was not produced. 17. Even, if Ex. A-1 is taken note of, it only contained that five bags of common salt had been sent from Amritsar to Dobi There is nothing in the bill that these salt bags were of Tam Tam brand of Iodine salt packed in 1k.g. of packing, sample of which was taken by the Food Inspector. 18. There is no doubt that under section 20-A of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food concerned with the alleged offence can be proceeded against if the court is satisfied on the evidence adduced before it. Under section 14 of the Act, it has been provided that no manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in any article of food shall sell such article to any vendor unless he also gives a warranty in writing in the prescribed form about the nature and quality of a such article to the vendor. The proviso to this section provides 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. Admittedly, in they present case, the alleged warranty in the shape of the bill has not come on the record. 19. Section 19 of the Act is reproduced hereunder ; “19. Admittedly, in they present case, the alleged warranty in the shape of the bill has not come on the record. 19. Section 19 of the Act is reproduced hereunder ; “19. Defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecutions under this Act—(1) It shall be no defence in a prosecution for an offence pertaining to the sale any adulterated or misbranded article of food to allege merely that the vendor was ignorant of the nature, substance or quality of the food sold by him or that the purchaser having purchased any article for analysis was not prejudiced by the sale (2) 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 dealer, with a written warranty in the prescribed form ; and (b) that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the same State as he purchased it. (3) Any person by whom a warranty as is referred (in section 14) is alleged to have been given shall be entitled to appear at the hearing and given evidence.” 20. In the present case, written warranty as required has not been produced nor sample of common salt taken has been connected with the Ex. A-4, referred to above. 21. Thus, in view of the aforesaid matter, learned Counsel for the petitioners submissions that his application under section 20-A of the Act was wrongly dismissed, does not hold good 22. It has been further contended that the Food Inspector has not taken the representative sample and as such on that ground the conviction has to be interfered with Again there is no legal force in the aforesaid submission. It is not a case where 600 grams of common salt was taken from different packets, but this quantity of common salt was taken from only from one packet which was alleged to be containing 1 k.g. of Tam Tam Iodised salt. It is not a case where 600 grams of common salt was taken from different packets, but this quantity of common salt was taken from only from one packet which was alleged to be containing 1 k.g. of Tam Tam Iodised salt. In this background, there was no necessity of making sample in a representative form as it was in the same form already when the sample was taken Otherwise also, as pointed out above in case the arguments advanced is accepted, it would amount that Iodine in some part was more or in some part was less, but in the present case the total absence of iodine in the sample has been detected In this regard also, the argument does not carry any legal weight. 23. Last but not the least, it has been contended that there was no occasion for the petitioner to exercise the right provided under section 13 (2) of the Act. Again, this argument has also to be ignored. PW-2 is one Pawan Kumar, posted in the office of the Local Health Authority, He deposed on oath that notice Ex PW-2/A under section 13 (2) of the Act was sent to the accused and postal receipt in this behalf was Ex. PW-2/B. He further stated that this notice was sent to accused Dina Nath on 15-6-1999 He also added that copy of the report was also sent to the accused. During the cross examination, the witness stated that the report was received by the Local Health Authority probably on 23rd April, 1990, This witness was never cross-examined on behalf of the accused on the statement made by him that under section 13 (2) of the Act notice as welt as copy of the report was sent to the accused This aspect only reflected that the version given by this witness to that effect was not disputed by the accused. 24. The accused was put following question under section 313, Cr.P.C. regarding the sending of notice and the report under section 13(2) of the Act the question and answer are being reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience. "Q. No. 15, There is in evidence that the Food Inspector had instituted complaint against you on 11-6-1990. The LHA bad sent notice under section 13 (2) Copy Ex. PW-2/A to you through registered post on 15-6-1990 as per postal receipt attached with Ex. "Q. No. 15, There is in evidence that the Food Inspector had instituted complaint against you on 11-6-1990. The LHA bad sent notice under section 13 (2) Copy Ex. PW-2/A to you through registered post on 15-6-1990 as per postal receipt attached with Ex. PW-2/B a copy of report of Public Analyst had also been sent to you what you have to say about this ? Ans ; I might have received the RAD." There is no denial by the accused regarding the receipt of the aforesaid documents. On the basis of the evidence examined by the prosecution and explanation rendered by the accused it does not hold good for the petitioner to argue that notice as well as report under section 13 (2) of the Act had not been received. 25. It has been contended that the sample of common salt taken from the accused was not meant for human consumption, but had been kept for sale for be use of cattle. The accused has examined one witness in this behalf in his defence. 26. Sh. Jai Ram appearing as defence witness, deposed on oath that in January 1990 he was present in the shop of the accused when the Food Inspector was present there, who asked sample of salt. Accused informed the Food Inspector that the salt kept for sale was meant for horses and cattle. This witness admitted that the salt was in the plastic packets and each packet containing 1 kg, of salt. He denied the suggestion that the accused had not disclosed that the sail was meant for cattle. 27. Statement of this witness will not inspire legal confidence at all. Firstly, the sample was purchased from the accused when he was present in his shop on 13-3-1990 and not in January, 1990 as has been deposed by this witness. Secondly, it has come -in the statement of the Food Inspector chat the salt kept for sale by the accused was in 36 packets of 1 k.g of each, which was exposed for sale as an iodised salt of Tam Tam brand. Such a refined salt alleged to be containing iodine packet in 1 k g. packet ordinarily is not meant for use of cattle. Generally, it is rock salt which is used for cattle the alleged defence appears to be an after thought and has been tried to be proved unsuccessfully 28. Such a refined salt alleged to be containing iodine packet in 1 k g. packet ordinarily is not meant for use of cattle. Generally, it is rock salt which is used for cattle the alleged defence appears to be an after thought and has been tried to be proved unsuccessfully 28. No other point has been stressed 29. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the two courts below are maintained. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court to undergo sentences passed against him. Revision dismissed.