JUDGMENT: The State has come forward with the instant appeal aggrieved by the order of the acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode in C.C.No.88 of 1993 wherein the respondent stood charged for the offences punishable under Secs.7(1) and 16(a)(i) read with 2(1a)(b)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules 55 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 2. The facts leading to file the instant appeal are as follows: The respondent is running a grocery shop under the name and style of “Sri Tamil Maligai” at Door No. 125 on Arasalur Road in Salai Village. On 27.3.1993 at about 4.20 p.m. P.W.1, the Food Inspector visited the shop of the respondent. He found that the respondent is selling coriander (whole) in packets of 250 gms. He found labels over the packets. After due notice to the respondent under Ex.P.4, P.W.1 purchased three packets of Coriander (whole) as per Ex.A.5 receipt. Following the procedure laid down under Sec.11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hearin after referred to as the Act), he packed the whole packets and sent one sample to the Public Analyst for analysis and deposited the remaining two packets with the local Health Authority. P.W.1 received Ex.P.16 report from the chemical analysts which was to the effect that the sample did not contain any extraneous matter or other edible seeds or insect, damaged matter, but contained 483 ppm of Sulphur dioxide. The analysts was of the opinion that the food samples is adulterated since it contains 483 ppm of Sulphur dioxide which is not permitted under Rule 55 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. After following the due procedure of issuing notice to the respondent intimating him to send any one of the available samples deposited with the local Health Authority for further analysis, P.W.1 instituted criminal proceedings against the respondent. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.11, Erode examined the Food Inspector as P.W.1. No other witness was examined. P.W.1 marked Ex.P.1 to P.17 documents. The respondent had not let in any oral or documentary evidence. After analysing the evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that there is violation of the provisions of Sec.11(1)(b) of the Act in that P.W.1, the Food Inspector had not mixed up the contents of the three packets purchased by him and divided into three equal parts. The respondent had not let in any oral or documentary evidence. After analysing the evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that there is violation of the provisions of Sec.11(1)(b) of the Act in that P.W.1, the Food Inspector had not mixed up the contents of the three packets purchased by him and divided into three equal parts. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Kerala High Court reported in 7959 All India P.F.A. Journal VIII 353, the learned Judicial Magistrates held that there is violation of the provision of Sec.11(1)(b) of the Act and that it vitiated the proceedings and acquitted the respondent. Aggrieved by such acquittal the State had preferred the instant appeal. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that when the food articles are found in sealed and labelled packets, it is not necessary to open the packets, mix them up and draw the samples. On the other hand, the learned counsel on the respondent submitted that the coriander (whole) was kept in packets of 250 grams only for commercial convenience, but they were not labelled packets. The learned counsel referred to the evidence of P.W.1 wherein he had stated that the packets were labelled whereas in none of the pieces of documentary evidence i.e., the letter sent to the Public Analysts requesting for analysing the sample and even in the Public Analysts report, nowhere, it is stated that the food packets are labelled. 6. I have perused the evidence. Nowhere, P.W.1 had stated as to what was the contents of the labels. Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules deals about packing and labelling of food articles. Rule 32 reads as under: Every package of food shall carry a label and unless otherwise provided in these rules, there shall be specified on every label: (a) the name, trade name or description of food contained in the package; (b) that names of the ingredients used in the product in descending order of their composition by weight or volume as the case may be; 7. The food articles in the instant case is coriander (whole). It cannot be said that it had undergone any manufacturing process for the manufacturer or the seller to give the ingredients used in the product. There is no evidence to show that even this food article was sold under any brand name. The food articles in the instant case is coriander (whole). It cannot be said that it had undergone any manufacturing process for the manufacturer or the seller to give the ingredients used in the product. There is no evidence to show that even this food article was sold under any brand name. The oral evidence of P.W.1 is only to the effect that the packet contained the name and address of the vendor. That cannot be construed as a label as required under Rule 32 of the said Rules. Therefore, when it is evident that the food articles was labelled, it becomes incumbent upon Food Inspector to open the packets, mix up the contents and draw three samples. Non-compliance of such procedure by itself would vitiate the drawing of the sample. I am of the opinion that the learned Judicial Magistrates had rightly held that P.W.1 the Food Inspector has not followed the procedure laid down under Sec.11(1)(b) of the Act and the vitiates the proceedings. 8. It should be pointed out that the lower Court has also lost sight of another defect. A reference of Appendix B.A.05.08 would show that coriander whole is dried mature fruits (seeds) of Corianrum Sativum (1). The proportion of extraneous matter including dust, dirt, stones, lumps of earth, chaff, stalk, stem or straw edible seeds of fruits other than coriander shall not exceed 8.0 percent by weight. That amount of insect damaged matter shall not exceed 5 percent by weight. It shall be free from added colouring matter. 9. A careful reading of Ex.P.16 would show that the sample drawn was in conformity with the norms laid down in Appendix B.A.05.08 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. There is no mentioning about preservatives in the aforesaid Appendix and the Sub clause mentioned above. Further, coriander is not a food articles which request addition of preservatives. The public analysts had not stated that it did not contain any colouring matter which is not permitted under the Act. Ex.P.16 would further show that the public analysts himself was in confusion. The food articles list, under Rule 55 does not include coriander. But, he had further opined that presence of 483 ppm of Sulphur dioxide would make the food article an adulterated one. Ex.P.16 would further show that the public analysts himself was in confusion. The food articles list, under Rule 55 does not include coriander. But, he had further opined that presence of 483 ppm of Sulphur dioxide would make the food article an adulterated one. When coriander is not analysed under Rule 55 which adumbrates as to that are the preservatives and in what parts they can be mixed, the non inclusion of coriander would not give a lever to the public analysts to hold that the food article is an adulterated food article. It is unfortunate that the prosecution has been based on this report and proceeded with the trial. Though this aspect was not looked into, I feel that it could not vitiate the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode. 10. I do not find any material to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.