JUDGMENT : B.C. PATEL, J. 1. The State has preferred this appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dahod in Criminal Case No. 1986/85 wherein the respondent, (herein after referred to as “accused”) was tried for an offence punishable under Section 7 r.w. 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Facts as emerges from the record are under:- 2.1. On 14.6.1985 at about 4:30 p.m. Food Inspector Pravinchandra Manilal Parikh PW-1 visited the shop of the accused who was dealing in Food articles, and in the presence of Panchas Food Inspector collected a sample of turmeric from the accused as per the provisions contained in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” and the “Rules” respectively). He has taken a sample of mustard oil but that fact not being relevant for the disposal of this appeal the details thereof are not referred. On analysis the Public Analyst opined that the sample is adulterated. After obtaining the consent from the Competent authority the Food Inspector launched the prosecution against the accused. On being informed by the Local (Health) Authority about the institution of the prosecution, to avail the benefit of Section 13 of the Act, an application was made to the court by the accused for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory which on analysis opined that the article of food is not in conformity with the standard laid down under the Act and the Rules. 2.2 On appreciation of evidence and considering the submissions made on behalf of the accused which are referred to in the judgment in Para 10, the Trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused and acquitted the accused. 3. On behalf of the accused following points were urged:- (i) The sample has been collected in breach of the Rules. (ii) The evidence of Food Inspector is doubtful as: (a) Panch has stated that the turmeric was in tin while the Food Inspector has stated that the same was in a jute bag. 3. On behalf of the accused following points were urged:- (i) The sample has been collected in breach of the Rules. (ii) The evidence of Food Inspector is doubtful as: (a) Panch has stated that the turmeric was in tin while the Food Inspector has stated that the same was in a jute bag. (b) The complainant has stated that the sample of turmeric was placed in a paper bag by the accused and thereafter the same was weighed in the scale while Panch has stated that the turmeric was taken from the tin by means of a steel bowl, thereafter the same was weighed in a scale and thereafter the same was taken on a piece of paper. (c) From the evidence there is nothing to show that the turmeric was stirred before collecting the sample. There is nothing to show that the instrument used for collecting the sample was clean and dry. (d) Panch has not stated that he verified that the bottles were clean and dry. (e) Peon who cleaned the bottles is not examined. (f) The bottles were not sterilised. 4. The Trial Court has relied upon the decision cited on behalf of the accused wherein there was nothing to show that the instrument used for collecting the oil was clean and dry. The Trial Court has relied on the decision of Food Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Baroda vs. M.R. Sharma, AIR 1983 SC 176 for the purpose of holding that the turmeric was not mixed so as to see that homogenous sample can be said to have been collected by the Food Inspector. The Trial Court has relied on State vs. Gandabhai Arjanbhai, for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the benefit of doubt should be given when mandatory provisions are not followed by the Food Inspector. 5. With regard to the Panch the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that he is not an independent person. He is dealing in biscuits and peppermints and no sample has been collected from him till the time the sample was collected from the accused and therefore it can be said that he is under the thumb of the complainant. When there was a possibility of calling some other person, the complainant instead of calling a trader from whom the samples were to be taken should have called person other than the trader. 6. When there was a possibility of calling some other person, the complainant instead of calling a trader from whom the samples were to be taken should have called person other than the trader. 6. The Trial Court came to a conclusion that while taking the sample it is not disclosed to the accused that the sample is collected as a Food article though he was informed vide Exh.12 that the sample is collected for the purpose of analysis. It was contended that the turmeric can be used for the purpose other than the food. The Trial Court has relied on 21 GLR 682 and 1978 Criminal Law Reporter (Gujarat) 474 and ultimately held that if any article of food is not demanded as an article of food, then the Food Inspector has no power to collect samples of the same. 7. The Trial Court has given importance to the report of the Public Analyst for the purpose of comparison with the report of the Central Food Laboratory and for the purpose of giving benefit of doubt to the accused by observing that the sample was not collected after mixing the same. 8. The Trial Court further held that consent vide Exh.20 is a cyclostyled form, wherein, the blanks are filled in and as the signature and the blanks filled in are in different handwriting in absence of examining the sanctioning authority it cannot be said that the person granting consent has applied his mind. The Trial Court also held that in view of Section 20 of the Act the Local (Health) Authority could not have given authority to the Food Inspector to file prosecution. 9. Mr. Raju appearing for the accused submitted that over and above the aforesaid contentions, two more contentions are required to be considered which are as under:- (a) That before the Trial Court no satisfactory evidence was placed to show that the authority granting consent under section 20 was authorised by the State Government or Central Government. (b) There is breach of provisions as contained in Section 13(2-A) as the sample was not forwarded by the Local (Health) Authority within a period of 5 days from the date of requisition.] 10. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act regulates trade in article of food which are prone to wide spread malpractices and therefore are controlled by its stringent provisions. (b) There is breach of provisions as contained in Section 13(2-A) as the sample was not forwarded by the Local (Health) Authority within a period of 5 days from the date of requisition.] 10. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act regulates trade in article of food which are prone to wide spread malpractices and therefore are controlled by its stringent provisions. The Court is required to consider the object of the Act, apprehended danger to the public interest, arising out of the activity if not controlled and the possibility of achieving the intended results by less stringent provisions ( AIR 1971 SC 2346 ). The object and purpose of the Adulteration Act is to protect human life from the danger and human health from the sale of article of food ( AIR 1971 SC 815 ). The Court is required to bear in mind that the Act is enacted with a view to see that the health of public is not affected. Offence under the Act are antisocial crimes affecting the health and well being of our people, hence a more drastic step was taken by the Legislature in prescribing a minimum sentence and minimum fine to be imposed even for a first offence. Adulteration of food is so dangerous and widespread and has often led to large human tragedies sudden or slow insidious or open with social defence of casting of absolute liability on the criminal even if particular offence is committed with unsuspected means. 11. Rule making authority after considering the object and scope of the Act framed the Rules. So far as colouring matter in article of food is concerned Part VI of the Rules controls the use of Food colour. Rules are not permitting addition of colouring matter except as specifically permitted, and even it is permitted, addition of colouring matter is required to be printed on the label affixed to package of food with a statement in capital letters so that everyone buying the article would know that it contains colouring matter. Rule 26 permits the colouring matter either in the principles whether isolated from natural colours or produced synthetically. Inorganic colour and pigments are prohibited, So far as coal tar is concerned rule 28 prohibits the use of coal tar except the colour with its common name, index and chemical class as mentioned in rule 28 and as per standard prescribed in Annexure 'B'. Inorganic colour and pigments are prohibited, So far as coal tar is concerned rule 28 prohibits the use of coal tar except the colour with its common name, index and chemical class as mentioned in rule 28 and as per standard prescribed in Annexure 'B'. These food colours are to be used only in the food mentioned in rule 29. In the instant case what is added is Metanil Yellow which is not permitted by rule 28 to be used in food. Even addition of permissible colour is prohibited in turmeric. Thus the complainant Food Inspector was supplied by the accused on demand, turmeric containing metanil yellow prohibited by the Legislature and thus if proved, the offence would be punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 12-13. The Trial Court has considered the erroneous submission made on behalf of the accused that the Food Inspector did not disclose that the sample is collected as a food though specifically he informed that the sample is collected for the purpose of analysis. Once it is proved that Food Inspector on demand was supplied with an article of food for the purpose of analysis, it was not proper for the Trial Court not to consider the same as article of food. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused is a vendor dealing in turmeric, mustard oil, grocery and grains. Once the accused is found dealing in article of food and Food Inspector has collected a sample of food for analysis, even if the article of food may be used for other purposes it does not cease to be an article of food. Learned Advocate while making the submission has lost sight of sub-clause (xiii) of Section 2 of the Act and Sub-clause (v) of Section 2 of the Act. Sub-clause (v) of Section 2 of the Act explains what is food. Learned Advocate while making the submission has lost sight of sub-clause (xiii) of Section 2 of the Act and Sub-clause (v) of Section 2 of the Act. Sub-clause (v) of Section 2 of the Act explains what is food. “Any article used as a food or drink for human consumption is food and that includes (i) any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in composition or preparation of human food, and (2) any flavouring matter or condiments.” Turmeric powder is thus food as firstly it is condiment and it finds its place as such in Appendix B of the Rules, Secondly it is used in preparation of human food and thirdly it being a natural colour as the same except as otherwise provided in the Rules is permitted to be used as such in or upon any article of food as per rule 23. However sale of turmeric containing any foreign substance is prohibited as per Rule 44 read with A.05.20.1 of Appendix B. Article of food, sold to Food Inspector for analysis would come within the preview of sub-clause xiii of Section 2 irrespective of fact that such article of food can be used for other purposes than food. 14. The Apex Court in the case of Food Inspector vs. Cherukatil Gopalan, 1971 (2) SCC 322 has held that the sale of an article to a Food Inspector for analysis is a sale. In the said judgment, the Apex Court also considered the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparal vs. State of Maharashtra, (1965) 2 SCR 894 wherein it was held that there is a special definition of “sale” in Section 2 (xiii) of the Act which specifically includes within its ambit the sale for analysis. It was contended before the Apex Court that once there is a sale as defined in the Act of an article of food, it is not necessary to establish that the accused are dealers in that article as such. After considering various decisions, in paragraph 18, the Apex Court held that when there has been a sale to the Food Inspector for analysis of an article of food, which, when found to be adulterated, the accused is guilty of an offence. 15. After considering various decisions, in paragraph 18, the Apex Court held that when there has been a sale to the Food Inspector for analysis of an article of food, which, when found to be adulterated, the accused is guilty of an offence. 15. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. R. Krishnamurthi, (1980) 1 SCC 167 , it was held that an article even if not intended for human consumption, if generally or commonly used for human consumption or in preparation of human food, would be food within section 2(v). It is was further held that an unqualified sale of such food for analysis is sale within section 2 (xiii) even if it is not offered for sale for human consumption. It was further held that sale of gingelly oil mixed with ground nut oil as such for analysis would be an offence punishable under provisions of the Act even if the oil sold is for external use only. Thus definition of word 'Sale' is very wide, regardless of the use to which it is put, and is not restricted to use of article of food for human consumption only. In view of this the contentions are meritless. 16. The Trial Court has relied on the decision of this Court reported in 21 GLR 286 in case of State of Gujarat vs. Gandabhai Arjanbhai wherein there is nothing to indicate that the court considered the requirement of conveying the vendor that the Food Inspector is purchasing an article of food as food. Section 10 of the Act empowers the Food Inspector to take samples of any article of food from any person selling such article and if the vendor is not giving a sample of food as demanded by him, the Food Inspector is empowered to take action as per sub-section (2) of Section 10 i.e. to say where the vendor is selling an article of food he has right to enter and inspect the place where the article of food is being sold and is also authorised to take sample of article of food for analysis. In view of what is stated herein above, the Trial Court has seriously erred in coming to the conclusion that as the Food Inspector did not convey that the sample of turmeric is taken as a food sample the same could not have been forwarded for analysis and the accused could not be convicted. 17. So far as the collecting of the sample is concerned Mr. Raju appearing for the accused has taken me through the evidence on record. It clearly transpires that:- (a) Food Inspector has collected the sample for analysis. (b) He has divided the sample in three equal parts. (c) After dividing, each part was put in a dry and clean bottle. (d) After sealing the bottles, one bottle was forwarded to the Public Analyst for analysis and the remaining two parts to the Local (Health) Authority. (e) The Public Analyst who received the same in sealed condition has found the sample to be adulterated. 18. From the nature of procedure to be followed till analysis, considering the provision of the Act and Rules and various decisions, it can be said that procedure of collecting samples falls into broad stages:- (a) taking of the sample. (b) dividing, packing and sealing of the sample. (c) sending of one of the samples to the Public analyst. (d) the analysis by the Public Analyst of the sample sent to him. In so far as the exercise of power in the discharge of his duty do not bear the ingredients of the offence a presumption in favour of compliance with the law is permissible under Section 114 illustration (e) of the Evidence Act, when the broad facts are proved, there would be justification to raise the presumption. The sample has been taken and the Food Inspector deposed as to he divided the article of food taken as a sample into 3 parts and packed, sealed and fastened the containers. This act was done in such a manner so as to comply with the rules and that could be reasonably presumed in absence of any challenge on that point. This act was done in such a manner so as to comply with the rules and that could be reasonably presumed in absence of any challenge on that point. The act of sampling, sealing and forwarding of the article by the Food Inspector as well as the fact of ascertaining the seal to be intact by the Public Analyst are duly proved from the evidence of the Food Inspector and the statement in Form No. III, the Report of the Public Analyst, which is on the record. The specimen impression was forwarded may well be presumed as declared in the Form itself. In Form No. III which is required to be used by the Public Analyst under rule 7 it is stated that the sample received for analysis was “properly sealed and fastened and the seal intact and unbroken” it would be reasonable to presume that this could not have been stated without his having compared the seal with the impression of the seal received separately and satisfying himself that there was no tampering of any sort with the seal. The same view was taken by Orissa High Court in Satrughna Bahra vs. Puri Municipality, 1968 Cr. L.J. 123. In case of N. Sukumar Nair vs. Food Inspector, (1997) 7 SCC 101 while rejecting the contention of non-compliance of Rule 18, the Apex Court held “But, if the word of the Food Inspector is not challenged in the cross examination and is otherwise found corroborated from the report of the Public Analyst wherein the necessary recitals, even though in printed form are available, compliance of Rule 18 is obvious. Such report by the Public Analyst is ex-facie evidence.” 19. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamlesh Kumar Babulal vs. State, 1981 GLR 404 , had an occasion to consider the provisions contained in Rules 16(c) & 16(d) and 20. The Division Bench considered the reported decision in case of Babulal Hargovandas 1970 GLR 530 . The Court pointed out that the Learned Single Judge referred the Apex court judgment in the case of Kasim Kunja vs. K.K. Ramakrishnan. The Division Bench considered the reported decision in case of Babulal Hargovandas 1970 GLR 530 . The Court pointed out that the Learned Single Judge referred the Apex court judgment in the case of Kasim Kunja vs. K.K. Ramakrishnan. The Division Bench agreed with the views expressed by learned Single Judge which reads as under:- “If the basic facts regarding taking of the samples, wrapping and fastening of the sample, sealing of the sample, sending of the sample and analysis of the sample have been clearly made out, the procedural details as to the prescribed manner of these acts may be presumed depending upon the facts of the case.” 20. The complainant Food Inspector has deposed on oath about the procedure followed for collecting the sample. There is no cross examination of the Food Inspector on the procedural aspect except that the complainant himself did not clean the bottles and that the bottles were not sterilised. Law does not require that bottles must have been sterilised before using for collecting the samples. Law does not require that the complainant himself must clean the same. On oath he has specifically stated that in his presence Peon cleaned the bottles and the corks. When the direct evidence of the Food Inspector is satisfying the requirement of dry and clean bottles, the submission that peon is not examined or the bottles were not sterilised are without merits. 21. In the instant case accused submitted an application for forwarding the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. Exh.3 is a document which was drawn by the Court while forwarding the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. After going through the same Mr. Raju was not in a position to say that procedure for collecting the sample has not been complied with. 22. Mr. Raju submitted that there is variance in the evidence of Panch as well as the Food Inspector about the container from which the turmeric was taken. The Food Inspector is consistent. Food Inspector has deposed that the same was taken from a jute bag. The contents of the Panchnama Ex.23 reflects the same version. The Panchas signed this document in token of collecting the sample. Date, time, article of food collected and the nature of procedure followed while collecting and packing etc. are mentioned in detail in Panchnama. Food Inspector has deposed that the same was taken from a jute bag. The contents of the Panchnama Ex.23 reflects the same version. The Panchas signed this document in token of collecting the sample. Date, time, article of food collected and the nature of procedure followed while collecting and packing etc. are mentioned in detail in Panchnama. Panch is deposing before the Court after a period of 4 years and therefore some variance is likely to be there. On that ground the evidence of Food Inspector cannot be rejected. 23. Mr. Raju submitted that there is variance in the version of Food Inspector about the method of scaling the turmeric and means of taking out turmeric from the container. In the cross-examination Food Inspector has stated that the accused put the turmeric in a paper bag and thereafter the same was scaled. Thus it is very clear that the turmeric was put in a paper bag by the accused himself and thereafter it was weighed in a scale. As the turmeric was weighed in a paper bag there is no question of cleaning the same or the scale by the Food Inspector. Accused was dealing in articles of food and not in colour. He was certainly not a colour merchant, vending in Metanil Yellow. It was his duty to supply article of food to a consumer, according to standard prescribed by the Act and in no way mixed with any material not allowed to be added to the article of Food under the Act. While supplying the article of food it is for vendor to take proper care that the article of food is in no way mixed with any other article. Scale, paper bag, spoon or any other article used for taking out material is required to be cleaned by him and not the customer. He has to supply the article of food as demanded by consumer and the article of food supplied must be according to the standard laid down in the Act and Rules and he has to see that no breach of the provisions contained in the Act or Rules is committed by him. He has to supply the article of food as demanded by consumer and the article of food supplied must be according to the standard laid down in the Act and Rules and he has to see that no breach of the provisions contained in the Act or Rules is committed by him. It is for him to use clean utensils or containers for storing the food articles and in the same way it is for him to see that the scale, paper bag or instrument used for taking out the food article are clean and dry. Rules require that the Food Inspector has to put the article of food in dry and clean bottle, jar or other container. Rule does not require that he has to clean the scale or the instrument with which food article is taken or the paper bag or other similar article in which material is supplied by the vendor. Thus it is for the vendor to make appropriate arrangements for keeping articles in his business premises in dry and clean containers to supply in dry and clean bag with dray and clean instrument. 24. Mr. Raju Learned Advocate submitted that the possibility of newspaper transmitting its chemicals cannot be ruled out as held by the Apex Court in Sardmal Jain vs. Nagar Nigam and Another, (1996) 7 SCC 307 . In that case the sample contained Rhodamine B which is not a traditional colouring agent for barfi (the sample which was collected for analysis). It was submitted before the Apex Court that the colour found in the sample is used as ink in printing process. The Food Inspector stated in examination in chief that he had purchased 1½ kg of chocolate barfi from the accused (by which he meant the servant of the present appellant) person, the whole lot of barfi was put on a newspaper which had been given to him by the servant of the appellant. Each of the ?rd portion of the barfi thereafter was put in dry plastic bags. Each sample was put in a tin and thereafter sealed in usual manner for onward transmission. The Apex Court was of the view that the argument raised a doubt that the food article was adulterated by the appellant or his servant and that addition of Rhodamine B is a deliberate act. Mr. Each sample was put in a tin and thereafter sealed in usual manner for onward transmission. The Apex Court was of the view that the argument raised a doubt that the food article was adulterated by the appellant or his servant and that addition of Rhodamine B is a deliberate act. Mr. Raju submitted that in the instant case the accused used a paper bag for supplying turmeric to the Food Inspector. It might contain Metanil Yellow and in view of this decision of the Apex Court benefit should be given to the accused. Before the Apex Court, in the aforesaid case, it is clear that after the accused supplied Burfi, the Food Inspector before dividing the article of food in three equal parts, put the same on the newspaper and that was an act of Food Inspector. As the Burfi was put on newspaper it was likely that it may indicate the presence of Rhodamine B. 25. An enclyopedia of chemicals, drugs and biologicals known as “THE MERCK INDEX” 12th Edition, 1996 is required to be considered. At Sr.No. 8349 Rhodamine-B is described in detail with its chemical name and so far as the use is concerned it is indicated “As a dye, especially for paper; as a reagent for antimony, bisumuth, cobalt, niobium, gold, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, tantalum, thallium, tungsten; as biological stain. Provisionally listed for use in drugs and cosmetics.” It is very clear that presence of Rhodamine-B found in the barfi could not have been ruled out as a sample was collected in a newspaper. There may be traces in the barfi, on account of use of printed material, i.e. new-paper and article of food being not absolutely dru. (Oily substance would absorb the material to some extent when it comes in contact with that material). 26. So far as metanil yellow is concerned the act prohibits use of it. The same is at S. No. 5989 in the aforesaid index with its chemical name. The note indicates that the provisional approval for external use for drugs and cosmetics was terminated by the FDA, see FDA Consumer, February, 1979, Pg.5. So far as use is concerned it is mentioned “As indicator in 0.1% soln. The same is at S. No. 5989 in the aforesaid index with its chemical name. The note indicates that the provisional approval for external use for drugs and cosmetics was terminated by the FDA, see FDA Consumer, February, 1979, Pg.5. So far as use is concerned it is mentioned “As indicator in 0.1% soln. of which 2 drops are required for 10 ml liquid pH : 1.2 red to 2.3 yellow.” When metanil yellow is found in turmeric it is difficult to accept the suggestion put forward by the accused that the paper bag was not examined by the Food Inspector and therefore presence of metanil yellow could not be ruled out. It is required to be noted that metanil yellow is being used for giving colour. Turmeric is a natural food colour as also article of food and to make the people to believe that the turmeric which is being sold is of a standard quality demanded by the consumer colour is added in a sub standard turmeric. It is not the case of the accused that he is dealing in metanil yellow and therefore some traces might be found in turmeric. It is the accused who has supplied this turmeric to the Food Inspector and if it is not as per the standards laid down Under the rules then it is for the accused to face the consequences. If he does not know the real contents of the article of food in question as he has purchased from a manufacturer, distributor or dealer as suggested now, it was for him to place relevant material before the Trial Court with a view to fasten the liability on such a manufacturer, distributor or dealer. He has choosen to remain quiet about the source from where he purchased this turmeric. The turmeric is to be grinded for the purpose of getting it in powder form. A person with a view to gain by selling adulterated article of food would be tempted to add colour. Under Section 19(2), vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated article if he proves that he purchased the food from a manufacturer, dealer or distributor and that article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it. Under Section 19(2), vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated article if he proves that he purchased the food from a manufacturer, dealer or distributor and that article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it. Thus, in case the retailer has purchased the article of food from a manufacturer, distributor or dealer, then to get himself exoenerated it is for him to place before the court relevant evidence establishing warranty. 27. Mr. Raju submitted that turmeric was taken by means of a steel bowl and after weighing the same in a scale was taken on a piece of paper. No question is put to the Food inspector about the steel bowl being used. In the cross-examination the suggestion is made to the Panch witness that the turmeric was taken out from the tin by means of steel bowl and thereafter it was weighed. In absence of any question put to the Food Inspector the trial Court has seriously erred in accepting the version of defence. 28. Mr. Raju further submitted that there is nothing to show that there was proper stirring/mixing of turmeric before collecting the sample. It is required to be noted that turmeric is not in a liquid or a semi-liquid form. Milk contains fat and solid non-fat. Therefore if the milk is not properly stirred, it can be said that proper method of sampling is improper but so far as powder is concerned there is no substance in the contention raised by the Learned Advocate. On demand of a mass, the vendor would simply take out the article of food which is in mass or powder form from the upper portion of the container. When various materials are put together for obtaining a homogeneous or reasonably uniform mass, mixing is necessary. The process of stirring is a continuos or repeated movement of an implement to agitate a liquid or other substance. In process of churning, a vessel or machine in which cream or milk is kept is agitated to make butter. In mixing beverages the same process is used sometimes. The submission made by the learned Advocate that the sample was taken without stirring has no substance as the article of food was in powder form. In process of churning, a vessel or machine in which cream or milk is kept is agitated to make butter. In mixing beverages the same process is used sometimes. The submission made by the learned Advocate that the sample was taken without stirring has no substance as the article of food was in powder form. Again, question arises that is it for the Food Inspector even in case of liquid form of food to shake the material and thereafter to take the sample? Would the Vendor permit each consumer to shake or stir the milk before it is delivered? The vendor knows the material he is supplying and it is for him to supply each consumer article of food as per standard as prescribed by law. 29. About the bowl being not clean and dry, no question is put to the Panch whether it was cleaned or dry or not and so far as the Food Inspector is concerned he has specifically stated that the accused gave the sample in a paper bag. In view of this there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned advocate. 30. With regard to the contention raised by the learned Advocate that the Panch has not stated that he verified that the bottles were clean and dry, the same has no substance because law does not require that Panch himself should examine and should opine whether it is clean or dry. The Food Inspector has specifically stated that under his supervision peon cleaned the bottles and he checked the same. In view of this there is cogent and convincing evidence about dry and clean bottles having been used for collecting the sample. 31. The Learned Advocate has raised the contention that the peon who cleaned the bottles is not examined is required to be rejected simply because in presence of the Food Inspector peon cleaned the bottle and he himself has checked the same. 32. The contention that the bottles were not sterilised is required to be rejected because law does not require that the bottles should be sterilised before collecting the sample. The law requires that it should be dry and clean bottle which from the evidence as said earlier is clear that each bottle was dry and clean. 33. 32. The contention that the bottles were not sterilised is required to be rejected because law does not require that the bottles should be sterilised before collecting the sample. The law requires that it should be dry and clean bottle which from the evidence as said earlier is clear that each bottle was dry and clean. 33. Another contention raised by the learned Advocate is that the Panch was not an independent person and he was under the thumb of the complainant. This submission is made on the ground that Panch is also dealing in article of food and no sample has been collected by the Food Inspector from him till the date on which the sample was collected from the accused. It is required to be noted that Panch is a neighbour of the accused. He is dealing in biscuits and peppermints. On further question he has stated that he is dealing in biscuits manufactured by a company in Ahmedabad and peppermints manufactured by a company in the brand name of Ravalgaon. Peon has called the Panch. It was the duty of the Food Inspector to take the samples in presence of the Panch. No enmity is suggested to the Panch. No enmity or basis or mala fide is alleged against the complainant. In the instant case suffice it to say that the sample was produced before the court and after satisfying that it was properly sealed and there is no tempering it was forwarded to the Central Food Laboratory and from the document Exh.3 it is very clear that the procedure required for collecting the sample has been followed. Ex.3 reveals that all the seals were intact. The Food Inspector while taking the sample has to affix a slip on the bottle which was found intact. The signature of the person from whom sample is collected is to be obtained on the wrapper in such a manner that the paper slip and the wrapper both carry a part of signature which was done in the instant case. Ex.32, details of the sample noted by Public Analyst makes it clear that the sample received was properly sealed and in fit condition for analysis. When the Court while forwarding the sample to Central Food Laboratory verified that sample was sealed as per rules, doubt does not arise. Mr. Ex.32, details of the sample noted by Public Analyst makes it clear that the sample received was properly sealed and in fit condition for analysis. When the Court while forwarding the sample to Central Food Laboratory verified that sample was sealed as per rules, doubt does not arise. Mr. Raju, learned Advocate could not point out any prejudice caused to the accused. 34. So far as the submission with regard to the report of the public analyst and the use of the same is concerned the Trial Court has committed a serious error in considering the same as the report submitted by the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report forwarded by the Public Analyst. The Trial Court has committed a serious error in comparing two reports for the purpose of giving benefit of doubt to the accused. 35. The Trial Court has seriously erred in coming to the conclusion that the consent Exh.20 is not valid in law as the person according the consent has not applied his mind while according the consent. Reading the consent it clearly appears that the authority while granting the consent has applied mind. Details such as, name of the Food Inspector, name of the offender, date of taking the sample, name of the article of food, date on which the sample was forwarded, the date on which the report of the public Analyst was received with its number etc. are mentioned in the consent. The consent clearly reveals that the authority has considered Panchnama, report of the Public Analyst and other papers before according consent against the accused. The sanctioning authority has mentioned that the offence is alleged to have been committed under Section 2(i-a)(a)(b)(c)(m), Rule 44 (h), 23 Section 7 (i) (V) and Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Act. These facts clearly reveal that there is an application of mind. The contention is that in a cyclostyle form, all these blanks were filled in and the signature and other contents are in different ink, therefore it should be held that there is no application of mind. Merely because it is suggested that it is in different handwriting or ink then that of the signatory it cannot be said that there is non application of mind. It is not necessary that the details must be written by the sanctioning authority. Merely because it is suggested that it is in different handwriting or ink then that of the signatory it cannot be said that there is non application of mind. It is not necessary that the details must be written by the sanctioning authority. The sanctioning authority has to peruse the documents which are relevant and on being satisfied the authority has to grant the sanction which in this case has been done. Therefore, in view of this it cannot be said that the consent is not valid in law. The form is prescribed by the authority and that is for the sake of convenience. If the form is prescribed by the sanctioning authority it cannot be said that there is non application of mind. Therefore this contention has no merits. 36. The learned Advocate contended that the trial Court has held that in view of Section 20 of the Act, the Local (Health) authority could not have given authority to the Inspector to file prosecution. Section 20 reads as under: 20. cognizance and trial of offence - (1) No prosecution for an offence under this Act, not being any offence under Section 14 or Section 14A shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of the Central Government or State Government or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government. Provided that a prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted by a purchaser or recognised consumer association referred to in Section 12, if he or it produced in court a copy of the report of the public analyst along with the complaint. (2)............... (3)............... 37. Mr. Raju further contended that there is nothing to show that the authority granting consent was authorised by the State Government or Central Government. Section 2(viiia) defines “Local (health) Authority” as under:- Local (Health) Authority in relation to a local area means Officer appointed by the Central Government or the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette to be in-charge of health administration in such area with such designation as may be specified therein. Local area as per clause 2(vii) means any area whether urban or rural declared by the Central Government or the State Government by a notification in the Official Gazette to be a local area for the purpose of this Act. Local area as per clause 2(vii) means any area whether urban or rural declared by the Central Government or the State Government by a notification in the Official Gazette to be a local area for the purpose of this Act. The word “local authority” as per section 2(viii) means in the case of (1) local area which is - (a) a Municipality, the Municipal Board or Municipal Corporation; (b) a cantonment, the cantonment authority; (c) a notified area, the notified area committee and (2) any other local area, such authority as may be prescribed by the Central Government or the State Government under the Act. 38. Section 20 contemplates that for launching the prosecution there must be a written consent. If the competent authority has sanctioned the prosecution then this submission has no merits. Section 20 also authorises that a person who is authorised in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government or the State Government can also institute the prosecution. If the sample is collected in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the rules then even purchaser is entitled to launch prosecution against the accused. In case of State of Gujarat vs. Natwarlal Pitambardas Shah, 1998 (19) GLR 1095 reversing the order of acquittal based on the ground that the Food Inspector was not validly appointed, the Division Bench of this Court held in Para 15 as under:- “Therefore in our opinion as a purchaser Patel had authority to launch prosecution against the accused. Even in our opinion even as the purchaser under Section 12 of the Act, complainant Patel had authority to launch prosecution against the accused. Proviso to Section 20 does not contemplate consent. In view of this there is no merits in this submission.” However, in the instant case learned Add. Public Prosecutor submitted that this submission is made without verifying the relevant Gazette. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 20 of the Act authorised Assistant Director Food and Drugs Control Administration, Nadiad Circle to exercise the power under Section 20 in respect of the local area of the Districts of Kheda and Panch Mahals and thus in view of this gazette published in Part IV-A (Extraordinary) on October 21, 1982, the authority according consent was empowered to accord consent. 39. Mr. 39. Mr. Raju at the end submitted that the acquittal must be confirmed as there is breach in forwarding the sample as contemplated under Section 13(2A) of the Act. After going through the record Mr. Raju has not pressed this contention as from the record it is clear that within the stipulated period the sample was forwarded. 40. Mr. Raju submitted that the offence is committed by the accused on 14.6.1985 and the matter is being heard in September, 1998. Thus more than 13 years period has lapsed between the date of offence and the hearing of this appeal. According to his submission after this long interval the accused may not be sent to jail. He has submitted that he is a small retailer and he has stopped selling turmeric. It is required to be noted that the accused was a grosser and was answerable if he has failed in supplying food articles which are not according to the standard laid down under the rules. If he was a small retailer and he purchased the turmeric from a manufacturer, then as stated in the earlier part of the judgment, it was his duty to disclose the name of the manufacturer and to place the evidence before the court, if there was warranty and if proved the court would not have held him guilty. It is equally possible that he might have purchased from a manufacturer but the retailer for the reasons best known to him is suppressing the manufacturer or there might not be a manufacturer of the said article and he himself might have grinded turmeric and might be responsible for adding colour to it with a view to show it to the consumer as a better product. Whatever it may be, in the instant case period of 13 years which has lapsed is an aspect to be considered by the Court. It is certainly not the case that he is a manufacturer, distributor or dealer but is a retailer. It is for the retailer to insist for warranty. To supply article of food by the manufacturer without a warranty would be an offence as the same would be in breach of Section 14 of the Act read with Section 7 (v) of the Act which is an offence punishable under Section 16 (1C) of the Act. It is for the retailer to insist for warranty. To supply article of food by the manufacturer without a warranty would be an offence as the same would be in breach of Section 14 of the Act read with Section 7 (v) of the Act which is an offence punishable under Section 16 (1C) of the Act. If he is given warranty and it is found to be false then the same is made punishable under Section 16(1)(g). Thus the vendors are protected by the statute and if these vendors are suppressing the real criminals it would not be proper for them to say that a lenient view of the matter be taken. If the Court is sentencing the accused for the term which is minimum prescribed under the Statute, the accused need not be heard on a question of sentence. Order of acquittal recorded by the trial court is quashed and set aside, the respondent accused is held guilty for an offence under Section 7 of the Act punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. 41. The matter stands adjourned to 10.9.98 at the request of learned Advocate Mr. Raju to give an opportunity to the accused under Section 248(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 42. The accused is heard on the question of sentence. He has filed an affidavit stating that he has stopped dealing in turmeric. He has stated in the affidavit that he purchased turmeric through Atmaram of Dahod, which was manufactured by Kumar Meghraj, but he had no bill and therefore, he did not take up the defence of warranty. He stated that he is a small merchant and is earning about Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 5000/- per month. Now he is dealing only in wheat, rice and dal (pulses). He stated that the matter is pending since 13 years. That affected him a lot and he also suffered a lot monetarily. 43. It is under these circumstances the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only), in default of payment of fine the accused is sentenced to undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment for an offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The accused is granted four weeks time to pay fine. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only), in default of payment of fine the accused is sentenced to undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment for an offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The accused is granted four weeks time to pay fine. The accused is also granted four months time to surrender, but shall deposit the amount of fine in the trial court within four weeks from today. 44. In view of this Shri Raju, learned advocate submitted that delay caused in hearing the matter and the fact that the respondent accused is a small vendor, who has stopped dealing in turmeric or any other food articles wherein there are chances of adulteration the court should suspend the sentence with a view to enable the accused to make an application. 45. One has to also look at the object of the Act and the purpose of the Act. The object and purpose of the Act are to eliminate the danger to human life from the sale of unwholesome articles of food. The legislature has provided minimum punishment. The Act is enacted to curb the wide spread evil of food adulteration and is a legislative measure for social defence. It is intended to suppress a social and economic mischief and evil which attempts to poison, for monetary gains, the very sources of sustenance of life and the well being of the community. The evil of adulteration of food and its effects on the health of the community are assuming alarming proportions. The offence of adulteration is a socio-economic offence. The construction appropriate to a social defence legislation is, therefore, one which would suppress the mischief aimed by the legislation' and advance the remedy. The offence under the Act are really acts prohibited by the police-powers of the State in the interest of public health and well being. The prohibition is backed by the sanction of a penalty. The offences are strict statutory offences. Intention or mental state is irrelevant. 46. Shri Raju, learned advocate drew the attention of the Court to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Badri Prasad vs. State of M.P. 1995 (Supp) 4 SCC 682 wherein the Apex Court gave an opportunity to the appellant to approach the State Government under sub-clause (d) of section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure for conversion of simple imprisonment to fine. In that case the appellant was on bail all through out. Shri Raju, learned advocate submitted that in the instant case the appellant has been acquitted by the Court and looking to 13 years period, now he should not be sent to Jail, more particularly when he is a petty trader. He invited attention of the Court to a reported decision in the case of N. Sukumaran Nair vs. Food Inspector, 1997 (9) SCC 101 . In that case offence was committed in 1984. The High Court set aside the order of acquittal and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The Apex Court in that case held that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence when at least a decade has gone by. The Court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 6000/- in the trial court as fine for commutation of sentence of simple imprisonment within the period of six weeks from the date of judgment and also to intimate to the appropriate Government that such a fine has been deposited. 47. The Apex Court in the case of Ganeshmal Jashraj v. Govt. of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 264 observed as under [referred in para 14 in the case of Dineshchandra (supra)]:- “......It is common knowledge that these small tradesmen purchase the food stuff sold by them from the wholesalers and sometimes even directly from the manufacturers and more often than not the adulteration is made either by the wholesalers or by the manufacturers. Ordinarily it is not the small retailers who adulterate the articles of food sold by them. Yet it is only the small retailers who are caught by the food inspectors and the investigative machinery of the food department does not for some curious and inexplicable reason turn its attention to the wholesalers and manufacturers. Ordinarily it is not the small retailers who adulterate the articles of food sold by them. Yet it is only the small retailers who are caught by the food inspectors and the investigative machinery of the food department does not for some curious and inexplicable reason turn its attention to the wholesalers and manufacturers. The small tradesman who eke out a precarious existence living almost from hand to mouth are sent to jail for selling food stuff which is often enough not adulterated by them and the wholesalers and manufacturers who really adulterate the food stuff and fatten themselves on the misery of others escape the arm of the law........” In the said paragraph, the Apex Court also quoted the following paragraph from the decision reported in AIR 1979 SC 1867 , where His Lordship Krishna Iyer J. said: “.....We are disturbed that it is possible that small men become the victims of harsh law when there is no executive policy which guides prosecution of offenders........” Even otherwise, there is a general power in the Executive to commute sentences and such power can be put into action on a principles basis when small men get caught by the law. 48. Mr. Patel, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the Turmeric, after purchase from dealer or manufacturer, vendor may add colour for gain. If the vendor has purchased from other sources he could have produced bill for the same and he could have availed the benefit of Section 19 of the Act. It is further submitted that he was appearing through a lawyer and, therefore, it can be said that he was given best advice in the matter. If he does not come out with specific plea about purchase of article from a dealer or manufacturer, he should not be granted any benefit. Who deals in article of food must take all necessary care as required under the Act and Rules, including that of purchasing food article under a warranty. If a manufacturer, distributor or dealer sells article of food to a vendor without a warranty as contemplated, the same amounts to an offence punishable under section 7(v) read with section 16(1.C) of the Act. He submitted that these vendors are really suppressing the wrong doers by not disclosing the name of the manufacturer, distributor or dealer. If a manufacturer, distributor or dealer sells article of food to a vendor without a warranty as contemplated, the same amounts to an offence punishable under section 7(v) read with section 16(1.C) of the Act. He submitted that these vendors are really suppressing the wrong doers by not disclosing the name of the manufacturer, distributor or dealer. Vendors are ultimately supplying food article to the public at large and therefore, if they deal in food article without warranty, they should face the consequences. It is not a defence in a prosecution of an offence pertaining to sale of any adulterated article of food to allege that the vendor was ignorant of the nature, substance or quality of food sold by him or the purchaser would not be prejudiced by the sale. Care is required to be taken by vendors while purchasing the article of food. 49. In the instant case the accused was dealing in the articles of food, which are required day to day by human beings. However, being a small trader, and a period of 13 years having lapsed, it would be for the State Government to decide the question of remission. Without treating this case as a precedent, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence of imprisonment is suspended for a period of four months, to enable the accused to make an application to the State Government for remission of sentence of imprisonment, which the accused shall make within a period of one month from today. The State Government shall, decide and communicate its decision to the accused within four months from the receipt of the application, taking into consideration the observations made by this Court and the Apex Court as referred to in this judgment, the cases reported in 1995 (4) SCC 682 and (1997) 9 SCC 101 , the fact that thirteen years have lapsed, and accused is a vendor. Appeal allowed.