Judgment :- (Criminal Revisions case under Section 397 & 401 Crl.P.C. against the Judgment in CRL.A.No.21 of 1997 dated 31-07-2003 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar preferred against the order in CC.No.197 of 1994 dated 5-2-1997 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy, Mahabubnagar District.) The petitioners were tried in C.C.No.197 of 1994 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalvakurthy, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity “the Act”). Ultimately, the learned Magistrate found them guilty of the alleged offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. Aggrieved by the judgment, dated 5.2.1997, the petitioners preferred Crl.A.No.21 of 1997 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, while dismissing it confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this Criminal Revision Case. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.9.1998, at 10.00 A.M., the complainant i.e. the Food Inspector, Mahbubnagar, Mahbubnagar District, along with his Attender, inspected the business premises i.e. toddy shop of A2. On suspicion that the toddy found in 24 bottles was adulterated, he purchased 1200 ML of it by paying the price and served notice in Form No.VI to A1, who was present in the shop at the time of inspection. Later, he divided the toddy into three equal parts and each part was placed into three clean and dry empty bottles whose mouths were closed with corks, tightly secured with twine thread and sealed. The paper slip which was issued by Local (Health) Authority, Mahbubnagar District with his signature was pasted on each sample bottle and the complainant obtained the signatures of the vendor and panch witnesses on each sample bottle and separately secured with twine thread above and across and put four wax seals on each bottle with his specimen impression seal. Panchanam was drafted in the presence of A1 and panch witnesses and their signatures were obtained on it. On 29.10.1993, the sealed container of one part of the samples along with Memorandum in Form VII was handed over to the Public Analyst by the Food Inspector. Panchanam was drafted in the presence of A1 and panch witnesses and their signatures were obtained on it. On 29.10.1993, the sealed container of one part of the samples along with Memorandum in Form VII was handed over to the Public Analyst by the Food Inspector. The sealed container of the remaining two parts of the samples and two copies of Memorandum in Form VII were handed over to the Local (Health) Authority. A copy of Memorandum in Form VII was handed over to the Public Analyst, who sent his report in Form No.III to the Local (Health) Authority concerned opining that the sample was not conforming to alcohol content, total acidity and volatile acidity, and therefore, it was adulterated. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused, the procedure adopted by the Food Inspector is totally contrary to Rule-24 of the A.P. Excise (Arrack & Toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969 (for short “the A.P. Excise Rules”) and thus, the entire case of the prosecution is vitiated. According to him, Rule-24 of the Rules mandates that the Excise Inspectors as well as the Food Inspectors are competent to inspect any premises where toddy is sold and when once the toddy is seized, it is incumbent on their part to send the sample to the Chemical Examiner, but in the instant case, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst and thus, the report of the Public Analyst has no relevancy in holding that the accused were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The learned counsel, in support of his contentions, has drawn my attention to the judgment of this Court reported in Gazetted Food Inspector Div.I. Mahabubnagar vs. P. Mohan Goud (2005 Crl.L.J.4267) wherein it was held to the following extent: “The competency of Food Inspector to lift the samples cannot be doubted. But the Food Inspector while seeking to left the sample of any intoxicant when he is specifically authorized or empowered, he shall follow the procedure envisaged under the relevant Rules framed under the provisions of the Excise Act but not the provisions of P.F.A. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. But the Food Inspector while seeking to left the sample of any intoxicant when he is specifically authorized or empowered, he shall follow the procedure envisaged under the relevant Rules framed under the provisions of the Excise Act but not the provisions of P.F.A. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The prosecution of the respondent in this case is in flagrant violation of the provisions of the Excise Act and the relevant Rules framed in respect of toddy. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the prosecution must fail. In any view of the matter, the Criminal Appeal must fail and is dismissed accordingly.” I am unable to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that the procedure provided under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is totally different from that of the A.P. Excise Rules. In order to draw a distinction between these two procedures, this Court feels it expedient to go through the procedures prescribed both under the Act and the A.P. Excise Rules. In order to draw a distinction between these two procedures, this Court feels it expedient to go through the procedures prescribed both under the Act and the A.P. Excise Rules. Section 11 of the Act deals with the procedure, which is as under: “Procedure to be followed by Food Inspectors:- (1) When a Food Inspector takes a sample of food for analysis, he shall; a) give notice in writing then and there of his intention to have it so analyzed to the person from whom he has taken the sample and to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14-A; b) except in special cases provided by rules under this Act, divide the sample then and there into three parts and mark and seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits and take the signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken in such place and in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that where such person refuses to sign or put his thumb impression the food inspector shall call upon one or more witnesses and take his or their signatures or thumb impressions, as the case may be, in lieu of the signature or thumb impression of such persons; c) (i) send one of the parts for analysis to the public analyst under intimation to the Local (Health) Authority; and (ii) send the remaining two parts to the Local (Health) Authority for the purposes of sub-section (2) of this section and sub-section (2-A) and (2-E) of section 13. (2) Where the part of the sample sent to the public analyst under sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) is lost or damaged, the Local (Health) Authority shall, on a requisition made to it by the public analyst or the Food Inspector dispatch one of the parts of the sample sent to it under sub-clause (ii) of the said clause (c) to the public analyst for analysis.” In usual practice, the Food inspectors follow the procedure prescribed under the A.P. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules made thereunder, but they are also given power under Rule-24 of the A.P. Excise Rules to inspect the toddy premises. Rule-24 of the A.P. Excise Rules is extracted hereunder: “Drawal of Samples:- Any Excise Officer, not below the rank of the Sub-Inspector of Excise or Food Inspector appointed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, shall be competent, any time, to take samples of arrack or toddy, in the possession of the licensee or any other person storing arrack or toddy, for the purpose of analysis. Such officer shall take three samples in the presence of the licensee or his agent or other person in-charge of the licensed premises or who is found selling toddy in the said premises, after conducting a Panchaynama. The samples shall be sent to the Court with a requisition to sent, one of the samples expeditiously to the Chemical Examiner of the Excise Department having jurisdiction in the region, in which licensed premises are situated, for chemical examination. If the sample sent to the Chemical Examiner is damaged, in transit or otherwise before the completion of the analysis, the court may be requested by the concerned Officer to send a second sample to the Chemical Examiner.” Thus, it is clear that so far as certain items like toddy is concerned, the Food Inspectors have two provisions. One is, to follow the procedure prescribed under the A.P. Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder and the next one is to follow the procedure laid down in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules made thereunder. When the Food Inspector follows the procedure envisages under the A.P. Excise Act, then it is incumbent on his part to send the sample to the Chemical Examiner, but if he follows the procedure prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it is incumbent on his part to send the sample to the Public Analyst, but if the very same Food Inspector follows the procedure prescribed under A.P. Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder and sends the sample for analysis to the Public Analyst, then only it can be said that it is wrong, but not otherwise. Keeping the above provisions in mind, when the evidence of PW1 i.e. the Food Inspector couples with documentary evidence is looked at, it is clear that the Food Inspector, though had seized the toddy for all purposes, followed the procedure in exactly the same manner as prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules made thereunder. Keeping the above provisions in mind, when the evidence of PW1 i.e. the Food Inspector couples with documentary evidence is looked at, it is clear that the Food Inspector, though had seized the toddy for all purposes, followed the procedure in exactly the same manner as prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules made thereunder. Hence, it can be concluded that the procedure followed by WP1 in sending the sample to the Public Analyst, who opined that the sample of toddy drawn by PW1 does not conform to alcohol content, total acidity and volatile acidity and therefore, was adulterated, cannot be said to be wrong. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel that the Food Inspector should have sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner instead of Public Analyst is wholly unsustainable and the judgment cited supra, which is relied upon by the learned counsel, has no relevancy to the facts of the case on hand. Hence, the findings arrived at by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court are perfectly justified and no interference is called for. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court does not see any merits in this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, having regard to the fact that the alleged offence took place on 28.10.1998 and the petitioners were in jail for about eight days, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months each is reduced to the period of sentence which the petitioners have already undergone. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. With regard to the fine amount, the judgment of the trial Court shall hold good. With the above modification of sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.