K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the CC No. 127 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, dharmavaram, dated 1-5-1999. ( 2 ) THE Food Inspector, Ananthapur filed a complaint before the Judicial First class Magistrate, Dharmavaram, alleging that on 23-3-1995 at about 4. 00 p. m. , the Food inspector along with his staff visited the kirana shop of the accused located in Door no. 1/179, Main Road, Malyavantham Village and he suspected the coffee powder in the packets to be adulterated. Therefore, he purchased six sealed packets on payment of rs. 60/- and obtained a receipt. The Food inspector served a notice in Form VI on the accused and obtained his acknowledgement. He divided the coffee powder in those six sealed packets into three equal parts and poured them in three clean empty plastic bottles and after completing the necessary formalities, sent one sample to the analyst. The analyst after analysis opined that the sample does not conform to aqueous extract and coffee in content and was therefore adulterated. After obtaining necessary sanction from the director of Preventive Medicine and State food Authority, the complaint was lodged against the accused and a charge under sections 16 (l) (a) (i), 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (m) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act is framed against the accused. When he was examined he denied the same. ( 3 ) THE prosecution examined PWs. 1 and 2 and marked Exs. Pl to P27. The Court below after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to establish the guilt of the accused and therefore, the learned magistrate acquitted him by the impugned judgment. Against the said acquittal, the present appeal is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order of acquittal. ( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contended that the Court below erred in holding that the article of food was covered by warranty and that non-prosecution of manufacturer was fatal to prosecution for prosecuting the accused alone and therefore, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. No representation of behalf of the accused. ( 5 ) PERUSED the entire material on record. No representation of behalf of the accused. ( 5 ) PERUSED the entire material on record. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that PW-1 who is the Food Inspector took the sample from the shop of the accused on 23-3-1995 at about 4 p. m. , and after observing necessary formalities, he sent one sample to the analyst and the analyst in his report which is marked as Ex. P21 opined that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed under the Food Adulteration act, and therefore, it was adulterated. The lower Court came to the conclusion that the accused is not the manufacturer of the coffee and that at the time of lifting the sample the accused produced a bill whereunder he purchased the coffee in question from the manufacturers viz. , rama Coffee and Tea Products. Under section 19 (2) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves: (a) that he purchased the article of food (i) in case where a licence is presented for the sale thereof, from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer, (ii) in any other case, from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form, and (a) that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it. ( 7 ) SO a perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the vendor who purchase any article of food from the manufacturer, distributor or dealer under warranty, then he shall not be prosecuted, provided further that the article of food should be properly stored by the vendor and he sold the article in the same state as he purchased. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex. P-6 would go to show that the accused produced cash bill to PW-1 under which he purchased the article in question from the manufacturer at the time of lifting the sample or immediately after lifting the sample. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex. P-6 would go to show that the accused produced cash bill to PW-1 under which he purchased the article in question from the manufacturer at the time of lifting the sample or immediately after lifting the sample. The evidence would further go to show that the coffee powder which PW1 procured from the accused was in sealed packets and that the seals were intact and on the date of lifting of the samples itself the accused produced the cash bill, and therefore, there was no possibility of tampering of the sealed packets. Therefore, from the evidence of PW-1 itself it is clear that the accused was selling the coffee powder in the same condition in which it was purchased by him. As the accused produced the bill, notices were sent to the manufacturer but they were returned unserved. So for non-service of the notices on the manufacturer, the accused cannot be mulcted with the responsibility. In view of the provisions of Section 19 (2) of the food Adulteration Act, the accused cannot be prosecuted. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 8 ) THERE are no grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.