JUDGMENT R.L KHURANA, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 13-5-1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, in Criminal Appeal No. 28-S/10 of 1993, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, by his judgment and order dated 7-10-1993, held the petitioner guilty no convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. 2. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm Messrs Tulsi Ram Jagar Nath at Mashobra. He deals in grocery. The Food Inspector, on 29-5-1990, visited the show of the petitioner when he was having about 60 Kilograms of "Besan" for sale to the general public. The Food Inspector purchased 600 gms of "Besan" from the petitioner after due notice ot him that the "Besan" was being purchased as sample for the purpose of analysis. The sample so purchased was separated in three equal parts in three neat, clean and dry bottles. The said bottles were then packed, fastened, labelled and sealed in the presence of the petitioner and the witnesses present. One of the sealed bottle was sent ot Public Analyst for analysis. On analysis, the Public Analyst vide his report dated 28-6-1990, opined that the "Besan" was adulterated, since the contents of the sample contained wheat and 1 maize starch as admixture whereas “Bsan" should not contain any foreign ingredient. On the receipt of the report of Public Analyst, the Food Inspector, after obtaining the requisite written consent from the competent authority, lauched prosecution against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, being criminal case No. 5/3 of 1990. 3. The petitioner, on having put in appearance, before the Court applied under section 13(2) of the Act for sending the second part of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The second part of the sample was accordingly sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore. 3. The petitioner, on having put in appearance, before the Court applied under section 13(2) of the Act for sending the second part of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The second part of the sample was accordingly sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore. The Director, Central Food Laboratory vide his report dated 14-2-1991 reported that the sample did not conform to the standards of Besan under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, since the same was not free from a foreign ingredient identified as "Kesari" flour which was against rule 44A(e) of the Rules framed under the Act. 4. On the receipt of such report of the Central Food Laboratory, the Food Inspector on 26-3-191, withdrew his complaint with liberty to file a fresh complaint against the petitioner, in accordance with law. 5. The Food Inspector, after obtaining fresh written consent from the competent authority, for the prosecution of the petitioner, on the basis of report of Central Food Laboratory, instituted another complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Shimla, on 20-8-1991, -for the prosecution of the petitioner for the offences under Section 7 read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. 6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by his judgment and order dated 7-10-1993, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under section 7 read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, as aforesaid. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said conviction and sentence. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 13-5-1996. The order of convictionand sentence, as recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, was affirmed. It is against these on current orders of conviction and sentence that the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 397, read with section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Shri K.D. Sood, the learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner cannot be maintained inasmuch as the sample before being taken was not made omogeneous. It was further submitted that the Food Inspector failed to follow the method of quartering in order to obtain representative sample. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench 6f this Court in Bhagat Ram v. State of HP., ILR (1986) HP 578. 8. It was further submitted that the Food Inspector failed to follow the method of quartering in order to obtain representative sample. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench 6f this Court in Bhagat Ram v. State of HP., ILR (1986) HP 578. 8. The Division Bench in the above referred to case took note of the method of quartering for the purpose of dividing sample into three parts, as described in the book "Chemical Analysis of Food and Food Products" (Second Edition), by Morris B. Jacobs. This procedure of quartering has been described in the following terms: - "A method in common usage for obtaining representative samples is the procedure of quartering. Combine the portions obtained from various sections of the lot and, after mixing as thoroughly as possible by rolling in a sheet or blanket, if the sample is large, or paper, if the sample is of moderate size, form the material into a cone. Flatten the cone into a circular shape and divide into quarters. Take two opposite quarters, that is, quadrants 1 and 3, and repeat the above process. However, after dividing into quarters this time, the opposite quarters to those used before, namely, quadrants 2 and 4, are taken. This process is continued until a sample small enough for submission for analysis is secured." 9. In the case before the Division Bench, the article of food was found to be insect infested. Therefore, impressing the ned to follow the method of quartering while taking in the sample, where the article of food is found to be insect infested, it was observed in para 24 of the judgment, as under: - "Manifestly, the above procedure is required to be followed in order to obtain a representative sample. This appears to be a must when samples of foodgrains or articles like Ajwain are collected with the object of finding the extent and degree of insect damaged matter or insect infestation. There can be no denying the fact that insect damaged matter would be comparatively light in weight and would accumulate at the top when shaken in a container. This appears to be a must when samples of foodgrains or articles like Ajwain are collected with the object of finding the extent and degree of insect damaged matter or insect infestation. There can be no denying the fact that insect damaged matter would be comparatively light in weight and would accumulate at the top when shaken in a container. Where the Food Inspector does not strictly adhere to the procedure of quartering the possibility of a greater proportion of insect damaged matter being put in one part, specially that part which is sent to the Public Analyst for examination, cannot be altogether ruled out. Similarly, it also stands to reason that the three parts made by the Food inspector should equally divide the insects. If so, the report of the Public Analyst with respect to the extent and degree of insect damaged matter or insect infestation may result in serious errors due to the concentration of such matters and/or insects in the sample which is sent to the Public Analyst. The failure to obtain a proper sample makes a subsequent analysis worthless observes Morris B. Jacobs at page 6 of his book referred to above." The above ratio is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The "Besan" was not found to be insect infested but the same was found to contain a foreign ingredient identified as "Kesari" flour. 10. Item No. A. 18.04 of Appendix-B, framed under Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, defines "Besan" as meaning the product obtained by grinding dehusked Bengal gram (Cicer aretinum) and shall not contain any added colouring matter or any other foreign ingredient. It has to conform to the following standard : - (a) Total ash Not more than 5 per cent. (b) Ash insoluble in HCI. Not more than 0.5 per cent. It has to conform to the following standard : - (a) Total ash Not more than 5 per cent. (b) Ash insoluble in HCI. Not more than 0.5 per cent. (Emphasis supplied) 11- Rule 44-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 prohibits the sale of Kesari dal or its use as an ingredient in the preparation of food intended for sale, it provides : - "No person in any State shall, with effect from such date as the State Government concerned may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, sell or offer or expose for sale, or have in his possession for the purpose of sale, under any description or for use as ingredient in the prepration of any article of food intended for sale- (a) Kesari gram (lathyrus sativus) and its products. (b) Kesari dal (Lathyrus sativus) and its products, (c) Kesari dal flour (Lathyrus sativus) and its prbducts, (d) a mixture of Kesari gram (lathyrus sativus) and Bengal gram dal (Cicer arietinum) for any other dal. (f) a mixture of Kesari Dal (Lathyrus sativus) flour and Bengal gram dal( Cicer arietinum) flour or any other flour." 12. The above quoted rule makes it amply clear that "Kesari Dal" in whatever proportion or form it might be, whether in the form of gram or in the form of ingredients used in the preparation of any article of food is totally prohibited from sale or exposure for sale. Since there is a total prohibition for the use of "Kesari Dal" in any form whatsoever under Rule 44-A, therefore, it is not necessary for the Public Analyst at all to give the exact percentage of adulteration in his report. Such percentage of adulteration would be necessary only in those cases where certain proportion of mixture of extraneous organic or inorganic matter is permissible under the rules. In view of total prohibition to the use of "Kesari Dal" under Rule 44-A above, therefore, even though the sample in question might have contained a small quantity/proportion of "Kesari" the offence of adulteration under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act is made out. [See Umesh Chandra v. State of U.P., 1996(1) FAC 322. 13. In view of total prohibition to the use of "Kesari Dal" under Rule 44-A above, therefore, even though the sample in question might have contained a small quantity/proportion of "Kesari" the offence of adulteration under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act is made out. [See Umesh Chandra v. State of U.P., 1996(1) FAC 322. 13. Besides, the words "and shall not contain any added colouring matter or any other foreign ingredient" occurring in the definition of "Besan" given in Item No. A 18.04 of Appendix B, referred to above, are significant. The moment presence of any colouring matter or any other foreign ingredient, is found in the sample of "Besan" the same would fall within the definition of the word "adulterated" within the ambit of Section 2(1-A) of the Act since the same would not be conforming to the prescribed standard. 14. In Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Hazara Singh, (1975 FAC 271, the apex court has observed : - "The standard fixed under the Act is one that is certain. If it is varied to any extent, the certainty of a general standards would be replaced by the vagaries of a fluctuating standard. The disadvantages of the resulting impredictability, uncertainty and impossibility of arriving at fair and consistent decisions are great." The High Court of Madras in State by Public Prosecutor v. Muihuswami, 1982 CrLJ 268 has held that the maxim "de minimis non curate lex" (law does not concern itself about trifles) has no application, once adulteration is found. It was further held that the Act does not provide for exemption of marginal or borderline variations of standards from the operation of the Act and in the circumstances to contend that the variation is negligible would virtually alter the standard itself fixed under the Act. 15. In State of Kerala v. Parameswaran, (1975 CrLJ 97) a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court has held that even marginal or borderline variations of the prescribed standards under the Act are matters of serious concern for all, and as public interest are involved in them, the maxim "de minimis non curate lex" does not arise. 16. A Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court also in State of Punjab v. Teja Singh, 1976 (II) FAC 44 has held that a marginal deviation from the prescribed standard laid down by the Act cannot be ignored. 16. A Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court also in State of Punjab v. Teja Singh, 1976 (II) FAC 44 has held that a marginal deviation from the prescribed standard laid down by the Act cannot be ignored. The Full Bench in support of its view quoted the following observations of the apex court in Hazara Singhs case (supra) : — "Food pollution, even if it be only to the slightest extent, if continued in practice, would adversely affect the health of every man, woman and child in the country. Hence even marginal or borderline variations of the prescribed standards under the Act are matters of serious concern for all and as public interests are involved in them, the maxim "De Minimis Non curate Lex" does not apply to them." Therefore, in the present case even if it be assumed that the admixture of "Kesari" flour in the "Besan" was in a very small and negligible proportion, the same cannot be ignored since the same does not conform to the prescribed standard under the law. 17. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the two courts below have rightly found the petitioner guilty of the offence. The conviction and sentence imposed does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. 18. Resultantly, the present petition, being devoid of merito, is accordingly dismissed. 19. The petitioner who is on bail is directed to surrender himself to the bail bonds before the learned trial court within four weeks from today and to receive and undergo the sentence imposed upon him. On the failure of the petitioner to surrender as above directed, the learned trial court shall commit the petitioner to jail for undergoing the sentence by issuing warrants of arrest against him. Petition dismissed.