JUDGMENT S.S. Grewal, J. - The accused Rattan Lal was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to undergo six months RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months vide order dated 16.1.1987 passed by Shri V.S. Malik, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad. He filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad against his conviction and sentence. His appeal was allowed and he was acquitted of the charge. 2. This appeal has been preferred by State of Haryana against the order of acquittal of the respondent passed by Shri I.C. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad in Crl. Appeal No. 34A of 30.1.1987/6.5.1988 decided on 16.1.1991. 3. As per the prosecution story, on 21.11.1984 at about 1 P.M. Raj Kumar Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. Mrs. M.K. Bhatia, Deputy Chief Medical Officer- cum-LHA., visited the shop of Rattan Lal and he found in possession of 5 Kgs. of tea leaves for public sale. The Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity and serving a notice purchased 375 gms. of tea leaves from Rattan Lal on payment of Rs. 12/-. Before purchasing, tea had been properly mixed in the tin in which it had been kept. After the purchase, it was divided into three equal parts and was bottled in three dry and clean bottles. These were sealed. After completion of the formalities the sample was sent for laboratory test. The report of the Public Analyst stated that the sample contained five rat dropping. Taking the sample to be adulterated, the present complaint was filed. Prosecution was launched. 4. On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with a copy of complaint. He applied for re-analysis of the sample and second part of the sample was sent to the Director Food Laboratory, Gaziabad, whose report also opined that the sample was to be adulterated. In pre-charge evidence the Food Inspector Raj Kumar appeared as PW-1. From the documents on record and the statement of the Food Inspector, finding a prima facie case against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act, charge was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. From the documents on record and the statement of the Food Inspector, finding a prima facie case against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act, charge was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The Food Inspector recalled for further cross-examination and his cross- examination was recorded. Dr. Mrs. M.K. Bhatia was examined as PW-2. The prosecution evidence came to an end in the statement of Shri S.P. Malik, Food Inspector Faridabad who gave up the witness. Pardeep Kumar as having been won over by the accused. The statement of the accused as provided under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, was recorded thereafter in which the accused pleaded not guilty and false implication. He produced in defence Jai Bhagwan as DW1 and closed his evidence. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that acquittal was effected only on two grounds i.e. tea leaves were not meant for sale and the Public Analysts have not opined that the substance was unfit for human consumption. He argued that the tea leaves were lying in the shop meant for sale only. Learned counsel has argued that tea leaves were adulterated as per report Ex. PD and the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad Ex. PH. Learned counsel has relied upon a decision in the case State of Punjab v. Kewal Krishan and others, 1996(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 317 where saunf was found adulterated and insect damaged. It was observed that it was not necessary to prove that, it was otherwise unfit for human consumption. Learned counsel has also referred to a case Smt. Manibai and another v. The State of Maharashtra 1973, Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 348. In para 6 it is observed that "it is not for the prosecution in a case under the Act to show that the adulterated article of food in question was deleterious to health and if so how much harmful effect it would have upon the health of the person consuming it. All that is required to be shown is that the article of food in question was adulterated." So, the present appeal should be accepted and the respondent be convicted and sentenced accordingly. 8. All that is required to be shown is that the article of food in question was adulterated." So, the present appeal should be accepted and the respondent be convicted and sentenced accordingly. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent states that occurrence/offence is of the year 1984. The accused was convicted and sentenced on 16.1.1987 but was acquitted of the charge in his appeal 16.1.1991. It will not be in the interest of justice to send the accused now in jail again after a lapse of so much time. Legally also his acquittal was justified. 9. In this case, Public Analysts reports found that the tea leaves to be adulterated but never mentioned that these were unfit for human consumption. In case State of Punjab v. Kewal Krishan and others (supra) the saunf was found insect infected. So it is clear that it was unfit for human consumption and that there was no necessity to prove otherwise. In other case Smt. Manibai and another (supra), it was coconut oil, found to be mixed with some other oils, and it was not generally used for cooking and used for massage of hairs and bodies. So, it is not necessary that it was not fit for human consumption. In view of the above discussion, the acquittal order under appeal does not call for any interference and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.