JUDGMENT:- By this common judgment, all the five (5) appeals are being disposed of together in as much as though they arise out of separate judgments of acquittal rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.). Jalna. yet. the facts and legal questions involved therein are identical. 2. The respondents were prosecuted in private complaint cases instituted by Food Inspector G. B. Wadekar for offence punishable under sections 7(i) and 7(ii) read with section 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (for short. "the PFA Act"). In all these five (5) criminal cases (R.C.C. No.1 18/1994. R.C.C. No.119/1994. R.C.C. No.1 20/1994. R.C.C. No. 121/1994 and R.C.C. No. 122/1994). the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondents vide the five (5) separate judgments. All the five (5) criminal cases arise out of the same transaction and the judgments of acquittal are also rendered for almost same reasons. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that Food Inspector Shri. G. B. Wadekar visited premises of an oil manufacturing unit styled as "M/s. Shanti Udyog". Jalna. situated in MIDC Area. at about 10 a.m. on June 3rd. 1993. He was accompanied by licensing authority Shri. Shete and panch witness Shri. Joshi during course of the visit. The respondent No.1 was present in the premises. The Food Inspector introduced himself to the respondent No.1. He inspected the premises. He demanded oil samples for purpose of analysis. He collected five (5) separate samples of 450 grams of the sunflower seed oil stored in the factory premises. He paid price of Rs.68/- to the respondent No.1 and took the receipt (Exh-26). He served a notice in Form No. VI on the respondent No.1. He also gave notice under section 14-A of the PFA Act to the respondent No.1. He thereafter separated three (3) parts of 450 grams of the oil sample in each case. The three (3) parts were filled in clean, empty and dry bottles which were corked tightly. Thus, separate 15 such sample bottles were prepared. They were affixed with labels signed by himself, panch witness and the respondent No.1. Each of the sample bottle was separately wrapped in a thick brown paper. The ends of the brown paper were inversely pasted with gum and were affixed with labels signed by the local health authority. The sample bottles were sealed as per procedure after tying each of them by means of twill. Each of the sample bottle was separately wrapped in a thick brown paper. The ends of the brown paper were inversely pasted with gum and were affixed with labels signed by the local health authority. The sample bottles were sealed as per procedure after tying each of them by means of twill. He prepared a memorandum panchanama then and there. 4. The Food Inspector sent one sealed sample bottle out of each lot, alongwith specimen seal and Form No.VII, to office of the Public Analyst. He sent remaining two (2) parts to the local health authority alongwith the copies of the Form No.VII. He also sent copy of the specimen seal and copy of Form No.Vll separately alongwith a forwarding letter to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst reported that the samples of the sunflower oil did not conform to the standard provided under the PFA Act and the Rules. Nor there was license with the respondents to manufacture and sell the sunflower oil. The respondent No.2 was the proprietor of the manufacturing unit i.e. "M/s. Shanti Udyog". The samples of the sunflower oil were found to be adulterated in as much as each of the sample was found to be turbid and rancid. A copy of the report was sent on the address of the manufacturing unit. It was returned with an endorsement that the factory was found closed. The Food Inspector forwarded the relevant papers to the competent authority for obtaining consent to prosecute the respondents. The competent authority i.e. Joint Commissioner (Food and Drugs) gave the consent for the prosecution of the respondents. The respondents were thereafter prosecuted through the private complaint cases filed in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C), Jalna. 5. The respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them in each of the criminal case. Their defence was of total denial. They submitted that the manufacturing unit was not functional at the relevant time. They asserted that the oil filled in the barrels was extracted on trial basis and was not meant for sale. They further asserted that there was no sale of the oil and the purpose was to examine whether the oil extraction could be undertaken at the factory premises. They asserted that the oil filled in the barrels was extracted on trial basis and was not meant for sale. They further asserted that there was no sale of the oil and the purpose was to examine whether the oil extraction could be undertaken at the factory premises. They also submitted that they did not ever receive copies of the reports of the Public Analyst and as such, have lost valuable right available under sub-clause (2) of section 13 of the PF A Act. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the factory premises were under construction at the relevant time. It was not in working condition. The learned Magistrate also held that the factory was not functional at the relevant time nor any printed bills. official documents, etc. were available. So, it was more probable that the trial was being conducted earlier and the oil was previously extracted on trial basis. It is held that the respondents could not be held liable for mere storage of the oil which was not meant for sale. Nextly, the learned Magistrate held that valuable right of the respondents to send the samples to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta is denied to them due to non-service of the reports of the Public Analyst within the specified time limit. Hence. they were acquitted. 7. Heard learned APP Mr. V. H. Dighe for the appellant/State and learned advocate Mrs. Netrali Jain, holding for Mr. Anil Kasliwal, advocate. for the respondents. 8. The samples of the sunflower oil were collected one after another in the same transaction from five (5) different barrels during visit of the Food Inspector to the premises of "M/s. Shanti Udyog" on June 3rd. 1993. The version of PW-I Gangaprasad Wadekar, the Food Inspector. purports to show that he carried out inspection of the premises in the relevant morning and thereafter collected the five (5) samples from each of the barrel found in the premises. He narrated as to how he paid the price and prepared the sealed sample bottles. His version is in accordance with the complaint case as mentioned earlier. There is no dispute about the fact that he properly followed the procedure while preparing the sample packets. His version corroborates various documents placed on record. He admits. unequivocally. He narrated as to how he paid the price and prepared the sealed sample bottles. His version is in accordance with the complaint case as mentioned earlier. There is no dispute about the fact that he properly followed the procedure while preparing the sample packets. His version corroborates various documents placed on record. He admits. unequivocally. that he could not tell whether there was a trial of the manufacturing unit when he had collected the oil samples. He was unable to tell whether the oil was extracted on trial basis. He admits that he did not peruse any record to ensure that the respondents were dealing in sale and purchase of the oil or the seeds required for extraction of the oil. He did not collect any information as to since how many days, the oil barrels were filled with the oil which was extracted in the manufacturing unit. He could not locate whether the oil was kept open to sky and could have. therefore. absorbed moisture. With the result. there was increase of rancidity due to chemical changes. He admits: "When I visited the premises, factory was not working. Except the accused No.1, two hamals and one or two ladies were found on the spot, I have not stated the said fact in my report. I cannot assign any reason for the same. nor I can state their names," He further admits that there was no flooring in the premises. He admits that the walls were not coloured. He noticed that some sunflower seeds were kept for drying. He also noticed that some machinery and gunny bags were lying nearby. The admissions of PW Gangaprasad Wadekar. the Food Inspector. go to show that the manufacturing unit was not functional at the relevant time. 9. Similarly, version of PW-2 Santosh Joshi (panch) reveals that the respondent No.1 was alone present in the premises of the factory. He states that the respondent No.1 told the Food Inspector that the factory was not working. Still, however, on demand of the Food Inspector. the respondent No.1 gave the samples of the oil stored in the barrels. He admits that except the respondent No.1, no other person was found in the premises of the said factory. He did not find any more stock of the oil and seeds except the five (5) barrels from which the samples were collected. This is a glaring fact. the respondent No.1 gave the samples of the oil stored in the barrels. He admits that except the respondent No.1, no other person was found in the premises of the said factory. He did not find any more stock of the oil and seeds except the five (5) barrels from which the samples were collected. This is a glaring fact. Needless to say, the work of construction of the manufacturing unit was not completed at the material time. Nor it had become functional so as to deal in the business of oil manufacturing. 10. The evidence on record goes to show that the reports of the Public Analyst were sent on the address of the factory premises. The envelopes, however, were returned with an endorsement that the factory was closed. The respondents categorically stated in their statements under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. while answering the question No.20, that neither of them received the information about the sending of the report on 05-08-1994 by the registered post (AD.). It is admitted by PW-3 Prabhakar, Assistant Commissioner. that the postal remark on the postal envelopes indicated that the company was closed. No effort was made to locate residential address of the respondents in order to serve the reports of the Public Analyst on them. 11. Coming to the legal position. certain observations in "Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Laxmi Narain Tandon" ( AIR 1976 SC 621 ) may be usefully referred. The Apex Court observed, in the above decision, that "storage" or "distribution" of adulterated article of food for a purpose other than for sale does not fall within the mischief of section 16(1) of the PFA Act. If an article of food is not intended for sale and is in possession of a person who does not fulfil the character of a seller, conveyer, deliverer, consignee, manufacturer or storer for sale such as is referred in sub-sections (I)(a) and (2) of section 7. the collection of sample from such a person would not constitute offence punishable under section 16(1)(a) of the PFA Act. 12. In "B. Govinda Rao and another Vs. the collection of sample from such a person would not constitute offence punishable under section 16(1)(a) of the PFA Act. 12. In "B. Govinda Rao and another Vs. Y. N. Ashokan" 2003(2) FAC 123, a Single Bench of Kerala High Court dealt with a similar question, The learned Single Judge held that the expression "store" as used in section 7 means "storing for sale" and consequently storing an adulterated article of food for purpose othcr than sale would not constitute offence under section 16(1)(a) of the PFA Act. The red cherries kept in the store were not intended for sale in the given case, and, hence, it was held that even though the same were found adulterated, yet, conviction under section 16(1)(a) of the PFA Act was not possible. 13. Considering the fact that there was no tangible evidence to infer that the sunflower oil was stored for the purpose of sale and that the factory was not functional at the relevant time, it goes without saying that the oil was not stored for the purpose of sale. Nor there were required arrangements made for the sale by printing bill-books, packing of the oil barrels, etc" Therefore, the defence of the respondents was quite probable and acceptable. The learned Judicial Magistrate seems to have properly appreciated the defence of the respondents. The non-service of the reports of the Public Analyst also gives serious jolt to the prosecution, The respondents have been deprived of their valuable right available under section 13(2) of the PFA Act. A Single Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in "Devakakonda Ramesh Vs. The State of A,P., through Food Inspector, Adilabad" 2003(1) FAC 245, held that where a report was not served as required, mere sending of the report by registered post, which was returned unserved, would not amount to sufficient service. As stated before, no efforts were taken to send the reports to the respondents for personal service. The learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that prejudice was caused to the accused and hence. the prosecution would stand vitiated under the circumstances. Similar is the view taken in "Sibanath Singh Vs. State of Assam" 2002(1) F AC 166, I am in agreement with the view taken in both these cases, 14. The learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that prejudice was caused to the accused and hence. the prosecution would stand vitiated under the circumstances. Similar is the view taken in "Sibanath Singh Vs. State of Assam" 2002(1) F AC 166, I am in agreement with the view taken in both these cases, 14. The sum total of the foregoing discussion is that the prosecution failed to establish that the oil barrels were meant for sale, it is also not proved that the manufacturing unit had commenced functioning, it appears that only application was submitted for license to manufacture the oil in the unit under name and style "M/s. Shanti Udyog, MIDC, Jalna", The respondents were deprived of their valuable rights under section 13(2) of the PFA Act. Under these circumstances, the acquittal of the respondents as rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate in all the above five (5) criminal cases is proper and legal. 15. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. The impugned judgments of acquittal arc confirmed. Appeals dismissed.