A. K. MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) MUNICIPAL Corporation, Khandwa, has preferred the present appeal against the judgment acquitting the accused-respondent. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 20-7-1999, hence this appeal has come up for decision. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case in brief is that on 18-2-1981 Shri Dashrath Singh Tomar (P. W. 1) who was posted at the relevant time as Health Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Khandwa, visited Narendra Industries. He had been conferred with the powers of Food Inspector by the State Government. After visiting the said Industry said Health Officer gave a notice under Form 6 of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience) and took the sample of Refined Rape Seed Oil. Food Inspector was authorised to file the complaint and collect the samples. After giving notice Food Inspector purchased 3. 75 grams of oil from tank No. 5 which was stored in the Oil Mill vide receipt (Ex. P-6 ). Oil purchased by him was divided into three parts and after division those three parts were kept in three separate bottles. The bottles were sealed properly in the presence of accused the erstwhile manager of the said Industry. One of the samples was sent to the public analyst, Indore vide Ex. P-9. Remaining two bottles were kept with the Chief Medical Officer under receipt (Ex. P-10 ). Report of the Public Analyst was received on 16-2-1981 and as per the report of the public analyst the sample was found to be adulterated. ( 3 ) THE accused also got the sample analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory under S. 13 (2) of the Act. As per the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as C. F. L. for convenience) the refined rape-seed oil was found to be adulterated. Hence complaint under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) was filed by Dashrath Singh Tomar, the Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation, Khandwa. Chief Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the offence was not proved as the oil collected was not stirred by the Food Inspector and also it was not taken out with the help of clean utensils. Hence complaint under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) was filed by Dashrath Singh Tomar, the Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation, Khandwa. Chief Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the offence was not proved as the oil collected was not stirred by the Food Inspector and also it was not taken out with the help of clean utensils. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that acquittal of the accused is bad in law as there is clear evidence to show that the bottles in which samples were collected were clean and dry. His further submission is that the utensil used for taking out the oil from the tank was used for the same purpose, hence even if it was not cleaned at the relevant time, it could not be held that sample was not collected properly. His further submission is that it was none of the duties of the Food Inspector to collect the representative sample even if it was collected in the bottles. Nonetheless it was the material found to be adulterated, hence accused was to be convicted. His further submission is that though there is variance in the two reports, the oil was found to be adulterated as it did not meet the prescribed standard. The deposition of Sarad Chand Jaini could not have been taken into consideration by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as he did not possess any qualification in the Oil Chemistry. ( 5 ) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently submitted that in the order of acquittal scope of interference is very limited. The view adopted by the trial Court is proper and reasonable one. HIS further submission is that the utensil which was used for collecting the sample was not cleaned in the presence of the Food Inspector. There is no satisfactory evidence that it was a clean utensil. He further submitted that the sample was collected from the bottom of the tank No. 5. In tank No. 5 oil remained below the tap level. It was not even stirred before being taken out of the tank for purchase by the Food Inspector. His further submission is that there is variance in the report of the public analyst and the Director of Central Food Laboratory which indicates that the samples were not collected in the proper manner. It was not even stirred before being taken out of the tank for purchase by the Food Inspector. His further submission is that there is variance in the report of the public analyst and the Director of Central Food Laboratory which indicates that the samples were not collected in the proper manner. Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1482 : (1999 Cri LJ 603) to submit that the samples were not drawn in the bottles which were clean and the acquittal was given in that case for want of such evidence. Said acquittal was maintained by the Supreme Court. His further submission is that there was no intention to sell the oil and as such offence under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act is not made out. ( 6 ) THE question whether the accused was having a guilty mind is not relevant for the decision of this case. It is trite law that in food offences strict liability is the rule not merely under the Indian Act but all the world over. Nothing more than the actus reas is needed where regulation of private activity in vulnerable areas like public health is intended. It is true that for the protection of the liberty of the citizen in the definition of offences blameworthy mental condition is ordinarily an ingredient either by express enactment or clear implication; but in Acts to deal with the grave social evils, or for ensuring public welfare, especially in offences against public health e. g. statutes regulating shortage or sale of articles of food and drink, sale of drugs, sale of controlled or scarce commodities, it is often found necessary in the larger public interest to provide imposition of liability without proof of guilty mind. The Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Grain and Seed Merchants Association v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 2346 : (1971 Cri LJ 1556), Pyareli K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange, AIR 1974 SC 228 : (1974 Cri LJ 213) and Dinesh Chandra Jamnadas Gandhi v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 1011 : (1989 Cri LJ 889) has taken the view aforesaid. ( 7 ) FURTHER submission of the counsel for the accused is that the accused did not intend to sell the rape-seed oil. This submission is irrelevant. He was involved in refining the oil, hence without proof of guilty mind, violation of the Act would itself be enough for attracting the penal provision. There is equally no force in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the accused that there was slight variance and no obnoxious material was found in the sample. Prescribed standard for rape-seed oil is that, it shall be clear, free from rancidity, suspended or foreign matter, separated water, added colouring or flavouring substance or mineral oil. It shall conform to the following standards :- (A)BUTYRO refractometer reading at 40c -58 to 60. 5 ( 8 ) REPORT of the Public Analyst is Ex. P-22. The result of the analysis as under :- ( 9 ) REPORT of the Director, Central Food Laboratory is Ex. P-13 which indicates that the oil was in a fit condition for analysis. Result of the test is as under :-BUTYRO Refracto Reading at 40c :61. 3saponifiable value:189. 19iodine value:107. 20unsaponifiable matter %:0. 65ffa as Olele acid %:1. 12bellier Test:18. 0the sample was found to be adulterated. THUS it is clear from Ex. P-12 and Ex. P-13 that the iodine value was little higher whereas the report of the Central Food Laboratory indicates that it was within the prescribed standard. Saponification value as per the prescribed standard is 168 to 177. It was 193. 9876 in the report of the public analyst and in the report given by the Central Food Laboratory it was 189. 19. The saponification value in both the reports was above prescribed limit on per litre basis. Unsaponification value was found to be within the limits. Acid value was also found to be within the limit so prescribed. Samples could not withstand the prescribed standard of Bellier test. ( 10 ) THE Act does not make a distinction between the several cases coming under it, on the basis of the degree of adulteration. The offence and punishment are the same whether the adulteration is small or great. Samples could not withstand the prescribed standard of Bellier test. ( 10 ) THE Act does not make a distinction between the several cases coming under it, on the basis of the degree of adulteration. The offence and punishment are the same whether the adulteration is small or great. Even marginal or border line variations of the prescribed standard are matters of serious concern for all and, as public interests are involved in them, the maxim De minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself about trivials) does not apply to them. Even the slight variation is enough to prove the adulteration within the prescribed standard, and makes out an offence under the Act. It was not necessary to prove in such a case that article of food was unfit for human consumption as laid down in the case reported in 1984 FAJ 451. ( 11 ) AS regards the manner and method of collecting the sample, R. 14 of the Rules contains the same which runs as under :-"samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable container which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation, or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed. " ( 12 ) RULE 15 of the Rules casts a duty to lebel and address and to mention the particulars mentioned in R. 15, on such lebel. Rule 16 of the Rules contains manner of packing and sealing the samples. Stopper has also to be fastened so as to prevent leakage of the contents in transit. The bottle, jar or other container shall be wrapped completely in fairly strong thick paper. The ends of the paper are required to be neatly folded in and affixed with paper bearing the signature of the health authorities. ( 13 ) SHRI Dashrath Singh Tomar, Food Inspector of Municipal Corporation, Khandwa, has stated that he had collected the sample from the tank No. 5. Initially the sample was taken in a utensil and thereafter it was divided in three separate parts and was kept in separate bottles. Subsequently, one of the samples was sent for public analyst at Indore vide Ex. P-9 and remaining two samples were kept with the Chief Medical Officer. Initially the sample was taken in a utensil and thereafter it was divided in three separate parts and was kept in separate bottles. Subsequently, one of the samples was sent for public analyst at Indore vide Ex. P-9 and remaining two samples were kept with the Chief Medical Officer. He admitted that there was one tap fitted in the tank No. 5. However, it was not verified by him as to how much oil was there in the said tank. Food Inspector has further stated that while taking out the oil from the tank No. 5 the utensil used for the same was cleaned by the peon. He did not deny the fact in the said tank the level of the oil was 4 cm. or more. This rape seed oil was sent by the Government for being refined, to Narendra Industries. Food Inspector in the cross-examination has changed the version for the reasons best known to him. He has further stated that from the tap fitted in the tank the oil did not come out. However, he expressed ignorance that such oil was required to be filtered. He further expressed his ignorance that the oil was taken out of the tank by the peon. Food Inspector has further admitted that the oil was taken out with the small container but he could not state whether the said container was clean. He also admitted that the oil was taken out by none else but by the person working in the refinery. He however, could not state as to how there was difference in the report of public analyst and that of Central Food Laboratory. However, he has admitted that if there was a mistake in taking the samples, there may be variance in the two reports. ( 14 ) BIHARI, another star witness examined by the Corporation to prove its case, has stated that oil did not come out by the tap fitted in the tank. Oil was taken out with the help of a utensil by the servant of the oil industry. Thus this witness has also tried to bail out the accused. Thus on the basis of the depositions of these two witnesses the trial Court has come to the conclusion that sample was not representative. Oil was taken out with the help of a utensil by the servant of the oil industry. Thus this witness has also tried to bail out the accused. Thus on the basis of the depositions of these two witnesses the trial Court has come to the conclusion that sample was not representative. The oil was not stirred before taking the samples and it was not collected with the help of clean utensil, hence there is possibility of impurities. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused relied on the decision of the Supreme Courtin the case of Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1990 SC 1482 : (1999 Cri LJ 603) where the Supreme Court has held as under (para 2) :-"it appears to us that if there are contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses for which there was a reason for the trial Court to entertain doubt about proper drawing of the samples and such view cannot be held to be perverse or inconsistent with the depositions, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. Therefore, there was no good reason for the High Court to interfere with the order of acquittal by ignoring the contradictions in the depositions and proceeding on the footing that the accused being seller was expected to protest against the irregularities in drawing the samples. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. The appellant has been released on bail. The bail bonds stand discharged. " ( 16 ) IT may be seen that in 1980 FAJ 320 (Cal) conviction was set aside because of the evidence on record which indicated that while taking the sample from tin the piercing instrument was old and mug in which it was poured was not cleaned in the presence of Food Inspector. Benefit arising out of evidence is given to accused and acquittal was thus sustained. ( 17 ) YET in another case reported in 1983 Cri LJ (NOC) 137, it was held that the ghee drawn from the bottom of the container without stirring the contents, no violation can be said to have been committed. Benefit arising out of evidence is given to accused and acquittal was thus sustained. ( 17 ) YET in another case reported in 1983 Cri LJ (NOC) 137, it was held that the ghee drawn from the bottom of the container without stirring the contents, no violation can be said to have been committed. In the case reported in (1983) 10 Cri LJ 154 (Punj and Har) wherein it was held that it is necessary for the Food Inspector to take the sample of curd in such a manner that the sample may be true representative i. e. the set curd should be divided vertically and the entire one compartment should be taken, churned and then divided into three parts. It is no answer that it is for the vendor to give a proper sample since a duty is cast on the Food Inspector and he must perform his duties according to law. ( 18 ) IT may be seen that stirring the articles before taking sample is not provided under the rule and has no universal application. Articles like Aata, Haldi, Ajvain and other food articles of same nature need not be stirred like milk or curd. ( 19 ) IN the instant case sample was collected from the bottom where the thick layers usually gather in the oil being stored and the oil was below the tap level in the tank No. 5 from which the sample was collected. Thus without evidence of stirring it cannot be said that sample was collected properly and was of representative character. Furthermore, it is crystallised that sample was not properly taken/sealed as there is vast variance in the report of the public analyst and in that of Central Food Laboratory. Variance has been admitted by the Food Inspector himself. Thus benefit of this variance in the two reports also indicates that sample was not of duly representative character and was not properly collected or sealed. Though the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of public analyst, yet the fact remains that there is variance in two and as per the deposition of the Food Inspector benefit has to go in such an event. FOR the foregoing reasons acquittal of the accused is found to be sustainable and the order which has been assailed in the appeal, is not worthy of any interference. FOR the foregoing reasons acquittal of the accused is found to be sustainable and the order which has been assailed in the appeal, is not worthy of any interference. IN the result, appeal sans merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .