ORDER : S.R. Brahmbhatt, J. The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the code' for short) challenging the order of acquittal dated 17.4.2004. passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar allowing the Criminal Appeal of the original accused No.1 vendor being Criminal Appeal No.34 of 1997 and quashing and setting aside the order of conviction qua the present respondent original vendor convicting him and original manufacturer accused No.2 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' for short) and ordering him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for 20 days. The order of conviction was quashed and set aside qua the present respondent-original vendor vide order dated 17.4.2004. in the appeal preferred by the vendor being Criminal Appeal No.34 of 1997. The same is impugned in the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that the order of acquittal is essentially based upon the finding that the trial Court erred in not appreciating the fact that the sample food article in question was collected in a sealed pack condition so as to accord benefit of warranty under Section 19(2) of the Act. As this is the only question deserve to be examined in this appeal, the counsels be permitted to advance their submissions at length on the basis of the papers of Criminal Case No.6970 of 1986, which is produced on record by Shri Patel, learned APP. Accordingly, the counsels were permitted to address this Court on merits of the matter at the stage of admission. 3. Brief facts leading to filing this appeal deserves to be set out as under. 4. The concerned Food Inspector original complainant at the relevant time while discharging his duties as such at Ranavav on 29.7.1986 visited the provision store of the accused No.1, who was dealing in grocery and food grains. The accused No.1 was dealing in 50 grams sealed pack compounded asafoetida of Rajmoti Brand. The Food Inspector introduced himself and informed the accused vendor his intention to collect the said compounded asafoetida of Rajmoti Brand of 50 grams for analysis by the Public Analyst. The accused No.1 was dealing in 50 grams sealed pack compounded asafoetida of Rajmoti Brand. The Food Inspector introduced himself and informed the accused vendor his intention to collect the said compounded asafoetida of Rajmoti Brand of 50 grams for analysis by the Public Analyst. The requisite notice under Rule 12 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the Rules' for short) in Form VI was issued to the vendor in presence of panch. The panch was required to sign the said notice, which is produced at Ex.28. The sample food articles were purchased on payment of Rs.11-25ps. The receipt whereof is produced at Ex.21. The label of the sample food article is also collected and the same is produced at Ex.30.The vendor has produced the bill No.97 dated 13.5.1986, indicating that the said food article was purchased from Raj Masala Grab Udhyog, Rajkot and the same is produced at Ex.31. Total 9 packets were collected and out of that, 3 packets of sample food articles were sent to Public Analyst and remaining 6 packets of samples food article were sent to Local Health Authority. As the said sample food article was found adulterated and not in conformity with the parameters and standards prescribed under PFA Rules, the same was declared to be adulterated. After obtaining requisite sanction to lodge prosecution, the prosecution was lodged against the vendor and the manufacturer i.e. accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the Court of learned J.M.F.C, Porbandar, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.6970 of 1986. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution brought home guilt on the part of the accused and therefore, convicted both the accused for commission of offences under Sections 7 and 16 of the Act and imposed sentence to undergo SI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of fine, further imprisonment of 20 days. vide order dated 13.8.1997. The present respondent original vendor accused No.1 challenged the said order of the learned J.M.F.C, Porbandar passed in Criminal Case No.6970 of 1986 dated 13.8.1997. in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 1997 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar. The learned Sessions Court vide order dated 13.4.2004. vide order dated 13.8.1997. The present respondent original vendor accused No.1 challenged the said order of the learned J.M.F.C, Porbandar passed in Criminal Case No.6970 of 1986 dated 13.8.1997. in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 1997 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar. The learned Sessions Court vide order dated 13.4.2004. quashed and set aside the order of conviction qua the original vendor on the ground that as the sample food article was in a sealed pack condition, the benefit of warranty envisaged under Section 19 of the Act ought to have been accorded to the vendor. The said order is impugned in this appeal. 5. As stated herein above, the counsels for the respective parties were permitted to advance their submissions on merit of the case. 6. Shri Patel, learned A.P.P. for the appellant has submitted that the order passed by the trial Court being just and proper, the Appellate Court ought not to have reversed the same. The sample food article was in fact found adulterated and therefore, the accused No.1 original vendor could not have been said to be not responsible for selling the adulterated food, considering the provision of Section 7(i) and (ii) of the Act. Shri Patel has also submitted that the trial Court has rightly held the respondent-accused No.1 guilty and convicted him and the Appellate Court has patently erred in acquitting the vendor on account of so called benefit of warranty under Section 19(2) of the Act. It is also submitted by Shri Patel that the burden as it is envisaged under Section 19(2) of the Act is caste upon the accused to prove that the food article was purchased under sealed pack condition and it was sold in a same condition and due care and caution was taken by him. The burden is therefore clearly lies on the vendor and the Appellate Court has committed an error in not appreciating the fact that accused vendor had not discharged the said burden and therefore, the Appellate Court has erred in giving benefit of warranty under Section 19(2) of the Act to the accused No.1 original vendor and submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and the order of Appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. 7. Shri Modi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent original accused No.1 has submitted that, from the record and proceeding, it can well be seen that from the stage of notice under Section 12, Form VI, the sample food article, which was taken up for examination by the Public Analyst, was in a sealed pack condition. When the article was taken in a sealed pack condition right from the beginning as per the say of prosecution, there is no question of not discharging any burden as question of burden would arise only when it is a case wherein the article is either purchased in unsealed condition and/or is opened up and collected in a loose condition. Shri Modi has invited this Court's attention to the decision of this Court (Coram: C.K.Buch, J.) dated 23.3.1998. in Criminal Appeal No.1049 of 1990 in support of his submission that when the sample is collected from packed and sealed tin and if sample fails, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer and not the person who has purchased the same for selling on retail basis. Shri Modi has submitted that, therefore, the order of the trial Court which has proceeded on the footing that the accused vendor was also responsible, being erroneous, has rightly been quashed and set aside by the Appellate Court. Shri Modi has submitted that this being an acquittal appeal even if there is another view possible, then the same cannot be resorted or relied upon for disturbing the order of acquittal unless and until it is demonstrated by the appellant that the sustaining of acquittal results into miscarriage of justice. Shri Modi has therefore submitted that the present appeal is required to be dismissed. 8. This Court has heard the counsels of the parties at length and perused the papers pertaining to Criminal Case No.6970 of 1986. From the papers of the criminal case, it is clearly noticeable that from the inception when Food Inspector purchased the sample food article for examination by the Public Analyst, it was in a sealed pack condition as it has been reflected in all the correspondence and it has been not disputed by any of the parties at any time. Section 19(2) of the Act is absolutely clear in respect of the responsibility of the vendor when the sealed pack article of food is purchased by the Food Inspector for Public Analyst. Section 19(2) of the Act is absolutely clear in respect of the responsibility of the vendor when the sealed pack article of food is purchased by the Food Inspector for Public Analyst. Section 19(2) of the Act deserves to be set out as under: Section 19(2) : A vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves - (a) that he purchased the article of food - (i) in a case where a licence is prescribed 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 (b) 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. 9. In view of this provision when it is time and again indicated clearly on the record that the sample food article was purchased in a sealed pack condition and when the manufacturer and the vendor are before the Court and when the manufacturer has not taken up a stand and proved that the sample food article and or the sealing on it was not intact and that the seal was not in a condition in which it was sold, then it was not open to the trial Court to deny the benefit of warranty available under Section 19(2) of the Act to the vendor present respondent original accused No.1. The Appellate Court's order acquitting the present respondent-original accused No.1 vendor cannot be said to be illegal and unjustified and therefore, the same does not call for any interference. This being an application to leave to appeal and appeal, the leave itself under Section 378 of the Code, deserves to be refused and as the leave is refused, the appeal also would fail. 10. In the result, the leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.