JUDGMENT :- 1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment of acquittal rendered in a criminal case (R.C.C. No. 211/1993) whereby the respondent has been acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 7 (i) read with section 2 (ia) (a), 2 (ia) (b), 2 (ia) (1), 7 (ii) read with section 2 (ix) (d), section 7 (v), Rule 23 and section 7 (ii) and Rule 50, punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (i), 16 (1) (a) (ii) and 16 (1) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Rules made thereunder. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that PW Shri Gopal Pathak is duly appointed Food Inspector. On 27th January, 1993 at about 4 p.m., he visited grocery shop of the respondent styled as "M/s Sadanand Sandip Kotalwar", at Gangakhed. He disclosed his identity to the respondent as Food Inspector. He called upon the respondent to produce license of the shop. The respondent could not produce the license. He noticed that stock of aniseed (saunf) was kept for sale in the shop. He purchased 600 grams of aniseed (saunf) from the respondent, against payment of Rs. 13.20 paise, vide receipt (Exh-28). He gave notice in Form No. VI to the respondent. He informed the respondent that the sample was collected for the purpose of analysis. He also issued notice under section 14A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, "the PFA Act") and served it on the respondent. The purchased aniseed was taken on a plain and clean paper. It was divided in three (3) equal parts. Each of the part was filled in a dry, clean and empty polythene bag. He sealed the mouths of the polythene satchels by means of candle flame. He pasted labels signed by himself, the respondent and panch on each of the polythene bag. Thereafter, each of the polythene bag was wrapped separately in thick brown paper. He pasted the corners of the brown paper by means of gum and inversely, fixed them. He thereafter pasted a paper-slip bearing code of the local health authority, signature of the local health authority and thereafter, vertically and horizontally tied each of the sample packet by means of twill. He affixed lakh seals of the knot of the twill and at other three (3) places of each sample packet. He thereafter pasted a paper-slip bearing code of the local health authority, signature of the local health authority and thereafter, vertically and horizontally tied each of the sample packet by means of twill. He affixed lakh seals of the knot of the twill and at other three (3) places of each sample packet. He obtained signatures of the respondent and the panch on the paper-slips. He drew memorandum panchanama about the procedure followed by him while purchasing the aniseed (saunf) and preparing the sample packets. 3. The Food Inspector thereafter sent one of the sealed sample packets alongwith Form No. VII to the Public Analyst, Pune with a request letter to carry out analysis of the aniseed sample. He sent another copy of the Form No. VII and specimen impression of the seal separately to the Public Analyst by registered post (A.D.). He sent two (2) copies of the Form No. VII alongwith the two (2) remaining sealed sample packets to the local health authority, Parbhani, alongwith two (2) specimen impression seals used by him. He received information from the licensing authority that the respondent was not granted any license to run the business of the grocery shop for sale of food articles. He received copy of the report of the Public Analyst from the local health authority which revealed that the aniseed sample contained extraneous non-permitted green colour and, therefore, did not conform to the standards as per the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, "the PFA Rules"). He thereafter sent the relevant papers to the Joint Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, for according sanction to prosecute the respondent. He was thereafter transferred. His successor PW Bhagwat Bobde lateron received the sanction order and instituted the complaint case against the respondent. 4. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge (Exh-43). His defence was one of simple denial. 5. At the trial, the prosecution examined both the Food Inspectors and placed reliance on various documents. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that the prosecution duly proved the fact that Food Inspector Shri Pathak adopted due procedure required under the PFA Act and the Rules necessary for obtaining of the sample. He gave due notices to the respondent and properly sent the sample to the Public Analyst. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that the prosecution duly proved the fact that Food Inspector Shri Pathak adopted due procedure required under the PFA Act and the Rules necessary for obtaining of the sample. He gave due notices to the respondent and properly sent the sample to the Public Analyst. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that only because the due procedure is followed by the Food Inspector for taking the sample and the compliance having been made in all respects, it could not be said that the charge was proved. The learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent on three (3) grounds. They are: (i) The Public Analyst did not mention date of analysis of sample in the report (Exh-40) and there was delay in causing the analysis; (ii) The report did not show that the sample of aniseed (saunf) was unfit for human consumption; and (iii) The consent letter (Exh-51) issued by the Joint Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Aurangabad under section 20 of the PFA Act indicates mechanical consent, without proper application of mind. 7. Mr. Patil, learned A.P.P., would submit that the grounds of acquittal are improper. He would submit that there is due compliance of Rule 7 (3) of the PFA Rules and, therefore, the learned Magistrate committed an error while rejecting the report of the Public Analyst. He would submit further that it is not necessary to prove that the food article was unfit for human consumption. He contended that in absence of any specific challenge to the consent letter (Exh-51), the learned Judicial Magistrate should not have invented a new defence for the respondent. He contended that presumption about due application of mind and correctness of the consent letter stands unrebutted from the record. He, therefore, urged to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of acquittal. None appeared for the respondent. 8. The version of Shri Gopal Pathak (PW2) – Food Inspector - purports to show that on 27th January, 1993 at about 4 p.m., he visited shop of the respondent. The respondent was attending the business of the shop at the material time. Shri Gopal Pathak, the Food Inspector, states that when inquired, the respondent failed to show the license of the shop. Shri Gopal Pathak then noticed that stock of aniseed (saunf) was kept for sale in the grocery shop. The respondent was attending the business of the shop at the material time. Shri Gopal Pathak, the Food Inspector, states that when inquired, the respondent failed to show the license of the shop. Shri Gopal Pathak then noticed that stock of aniseed (saunf) was kept for sale in the grocery shop. He purchased 600 grams of the aniseed against payment of Rs. 13.20 p. vide receipt (Exh-28). He issued notice in Form No. VII to the respondent. He narrated as to how 600 grams of aniseed was collected on a plain and clean paper, was got divided in three (3) equal parts, which were filled in three (3) clean, empty and dry polythene bags. His version reveals that he followed the required procedure for preparing the sample packets of the three (3) equal parts of the aniseed (saunf). His version reveals further that the sample packets were properly labelled and paper-slips bearing code number and signature of the local health authority were affixed thereon. There is no dispute raised as regards proper sampling of the purchased aniseed by the Food Inspector. Nothing of much importance could be gathered from cross-examination of Shri Gopal Pathak, the Food Inspector, in this behalf. As stated before, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the Food Inspector adopted proper procedure, as described under the PFA Act and the PFA Rules. The memorandum panchanama (Exh-31) reveals that the Food Inspector adopted the necessary procedure for purchasing of the aniseed and preparing of the sample packets. It is duly proved that Shri Gopal Pathak sent one of the sealed sample packets to the Public Analyst, Pune alongwith Form No. VII and a forwarding letter - Memorandum (Exh-32). He also sent copy of the specimen seal and copy of Form No. VII separately, by registered post vide Exh-35. The Food Inspector further sent copies of Form No. VII and the remaining two (2) sealed sample packets to the local health authority, namely, Assistant Commissioner of Food and Drugs Administration, Parbhani vide letter (Exh-37). Thus, there is no procedural lapse committed by him in collecting of the sample and sending of the sealed sample packet to the Public Analyst. 9. The report of the Public Analyst (Exh-40) dated 04-03-1993 reveals that the sealed sample packets was received by the Public Analyst with seals intact. Thus, there is no procedural lapse committed by him in collecting of the sample and sending of the sealed sample packet to the Public Analyst. 9. The report of the Public Analyst (Exh-40) dated 04-03-1993 reveals that the sealed sample packets was received by the Public Analyst with seals intact. The report of analysed sample contained extraneous organic matter of 0.78% by weight, insect damage matter to the extent of 0.24% by weight and added colouring matter. The Public Analyst noticed that extraneous non-permitted green colour was used. Therefore, it was reported that the food article did not confirm to the standards of aniseed (saunf) as provided under the PFA Rules. 10. Clinching question is whether the report of the Public Analyst could be discarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The learned Judicial Magistrate referred to case of "The State of Maharashtra v. Tirathsingh 55 Saudgarsingh Khanuja" 1986 (1) FAC 55. In the given case, it was found that the sample was analyzed after about 38 days. In the case in hand, however, the sample was received by the Public Analyst on 02-02-1993 and the report was sent on 04-03-1993. Thus, the report was sent within one month and one day from receipt of the sample. In this regard, Rule 7 (3) of the PFA Rules, may be usefully referred. The sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 reads as follows: "(3) The Public Analyst shall, within a period of forty days from the date of receipt of any sample for analysis, send by a registered post or by hand, to the Local (Health) Authority a report of the result of such analysis in Form III: Provided that where any such sample does not conform to the provisions of the Act or these rules, the Public Analyst shall send by registered post or by hand four copies of such report to the said Authority: Provided further that the Public Analyst shall forward a copy of such report also to the person who purchased an article of food and forward the same to him for analysis under Sec. 12 of the Act." 11. A plain reading of sub-rule (3) reveals that period of 40 days is provided for the purpose of sending of the report by the Public Analyst to the Local Health authority. There is no delay caused by the Public Analyst in sending of the report. A plain reading of sub-rule (3) reveals that period of 40 days is provided for the purpose of sending of the report by the Public Analyst to the Local Health authority. There is no delay caused by the Public Analyst in sending of the report. There was no violation of sub-rule (3) of Rule (7) of the PFA Rules. The learned Judicial Magistrate failed to see that the Rule was not breached by the Public Analyst. His finding, therefore, that "the important lacuna as brought to my notice vitiates the entire prosecution" is absolutely untenable. 12. The respondent never came out with a case that he was prejudiced in any manner due to the so called delay in sending of the report by the Public Analyst. It was never his case that the so called delay had led to the denial of his right conferred under section 13 (2) of the PFA Act. Nor it was submitted that due to the so called delay, there could be material change in the sample of the food article. The Apex Court in "Osman 84) vs. Food Inspector" (1995 FAJ 84), held that violation of the time-limit of sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 by itself cannot be a ground for the prosecution case being thrown out. The learned Magistrate failed to notice that there was no violation of sub-rule (3) in the present case. Moreover, the so called violation of the time-limit had no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the matter. The respondent never submitted an application under section 13 (2) of the PFA Act for sending of another sample to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. In "Food Inspector, Tellicherry Municipality 166 v. P. Abdulla Haji" 1986 (1) FAC 166, the Kerala High Court held that the delay of 3/4 days in sending of the report by the Public Analyst could not be regarded as fatal to the prosecution. The learned Single Judge held that the Rule could not be held as mandatory in order to make a slight violation fatal to the prosecution. The learned Single Judge held that the Rule could not be held as mandatory in order to make a slight violation fatal to the prosecution. It is observed: "The approach to Rule 7 (3) could only be prejudice oriented and an accused who has not attempted to exercise his right under Section 13 (2) cannot raise such a plea especially when there is nothing to show that he could not have exercised that right due to the sample having become unfit for analysis." I, respectfully, agree with the above view and particularly, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court referred to above. Needless to say that unless there is substantial prejudice caused to the accused, due to delay in sending of the report by the Public Analyst, mere marginal delay in sending of the report will not vitiate the report and the proceedings. The learned Judicial Magistrate committed patent error while holding that so called lacuna vitiated the entire prosecution. It need not be reiterated that indeed, there was no lacuna as such in this behalf and moreover, a marginal delay of single day could not have caused any prejudice to the defence. The main ground in support of the judgment of acquittal is, therefore, of no avail. 13. Nextly, the learned Magistrate rejected the report of the Public Analyst (Exh-40) on the ground that the report did not show that the sample of aniseed was found "unfit for human consumption". It is true that the report of Public Analyst (Exh-40) does not show that the sample of aniseed was unfit for human consumption. It is, however, not necessary under any Rule to specifically mention in the report that the sample was unfit for human consumption. It would suffice if the report indicates that the sample was not in accordance with the standard prescribed under the PFA Rules. The sale of aniseed having extraneous colouring material is itself prohibited under the law. The Apex Court in "Tulsiram v. State of 299) Madhya Pradesh" ( AIR 1985 S.C. 299 ), observed: "The sale of an article of food, the sale of which is prohibited by any rule made under the Act, also renders the person selling the article of food liable to punishment under S. 16 (1) (a) (i). Rule 44 (3) prohibits the sale of a mixture of two or more edible oils as an edible oil. Rule 44 (3) prohibits the sale of a mixture of two or more edible oils as an edible oil. A mixture of Soyabean oil and cotton seed oil cannot therefore be sold as Soyabean oil irrespective of whether the mixture has affected the Soyabean oil injuriously or not." The fact that the sample was not injurious to health would not mean that it was not adulterated. The fact that the report of Public Analyst does not show that the sample was unfit for human consumption, would not mean that it was not adulterated. 14. The expression "adulterated" as used in section 2 (ia) (j) would make it clear that if the food article contains any colouring matter, other than that prescribed in respect thereof could be regarded as adulterated one. The learned Judicial Magistrate seems to have wrongly placed reliance on "State (Delhi Administration) 741) v. Puran Mal" ( AIR 1985 S.C. 741 ). In the given case, it was noticed that there was no other evidence to support case of the prosecution that the sample was adulterated. The report of the Public Analyst in that case did not mention that the sample was insect-infested, or unfit for human consumption or otherwise adulterated. The fact situation in the present case is entirely on different footing. The report of Public Analyst (Exh-40) shows that there was insect damage matter to the extent of 0.24% and the sample was added with extraneous non-permitted green colour. In other words, the aniseed (saunf) was given coating of non-permissible green colour. Therefore, it was quite contrary to the Rule 23 of the PFA Rules. A combined effect of the Rules 23, 26 and 29 of the PFA Rules would be that the addition of any colouring matter to any food article, except as specifically permitted by the Rules 26 and 28, would amount to adulteration so as to attract the penalty under section 16 (1) (a) of the PFA Act. In order to sustain conviction under the said provision, it is wholly irrelevant to find as to what was actually the substance that had been used for colouring a particular article of food, if it is proved that the colouring matter was not one which has been specifically permitted by Rules 26 and 28 of the PFA Rules. In order to sustain conviction under the said provision, it is wholly irrelevant to find as to what was actually the substance that had been used for colouring a particular article of food, if it is proved that the colouring matter was not one which has been specifically permitted by Rules 26 and 28 of the PFA Rules. It was not the case of the respondent that permissible green colour was used for coating the aniseed (saunf). Obviously, it is duly proved that the respondent committed breach of Rule 23 of the PFA Rules. 15. It has come in the evidence of Bhagwat Bobde (PW1), the Food Inspector, who filed the complaint, that the consent letter (Exh-51) issued by the Joint Commissioner, was received by him. The testimony of Shri Gopal Pathak purports to show that he had forwarded all the relevant papers alongwith copy of the report of Public Analyst to the Joint Commissioner of Food and Drugs Administration. The consent letter (Exh-51) reveals that the relevant papers including the memorandum panchanama, report of the Public Analyst, etc. had been perused by the Joint Commissioner (Food and Drugs Administration). The consent letter goes to show that the competent authority accorded sanction for the prosecution in the exercise of powers under section 20 (1) of the PFA Act after due consideration of the relevant material placed before him There is no substratum to infer that the competent authority did not apply mind to the material placed for consideration. The competent authority noticed that the sample was adulterated and also contravened provision of Rule 23 of the PFA Rules. The Joint Commissioner came to the conclusion that the vendor was also selling the article of food without requisite license, as required under Rule 50 of the PFA Rules. He clearly observed: "Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that prima facie offence is disclosed in his case and this is a fit case for the prosecution under section 7 (i) r/w Sec. 2 (i-a) (a), punishable under Sec. 16 (1) (a) (ii)...." Needless to say, prima facie, satisfaction of the competent authority is reflected from the consent letter. It is imperative, therefore, that the consent letter could not be held as invalid. The learned Judicial Magistrate committed error while holding that it was a mechanical consent given to the complainant for filing the case against the respondent. It is imperative, therefore, that the consent letter could not be held as invalid. The learned Judicial Magistrate committed error while holding that it was a mechanical consent given to the complainant for filing the case against the respondent. The cross-examination of Shri Gopal Pathak, the Food Inspector, does not disclose any material to gather challenge to the consent letter. Under these circumstances, the acquittal of the respondent for want of proper consent is erroneous. 16. In "State of Maharashtra v. Raheman s/o Chandsaheb 881) Shaikh" (1993 Mh.L.J. 881), a Division Bench of this Court held that mere non-examination of panch witnesses would not mean that procedure prescribed by section 10 (7) of the PFA Act was not followed by the Food Inspector. The Division Bench of this Court was pleased to set aside the judgment of acquittal holding that evidence of the Food Inspector was satisfactory and was sufficiently corroborated. The Court is not justified in finding the fault which either did not exist or have no bearing on merits of the case. The approach of the learned Judicial Magistrate appears to be improper and irrational. Though he noticed that the Food Inspector adopted due procedure and the report of the Public Analyst indicated that the sample of aniseed (saunf) was adulterated, yet, he discarded the case of prosecution for the reasons which are outside the realm of the legal framework. It ought to have been held that the sample of aniseed was proved to be adulterated and that the respondent failed to disclose name of the manufacturer from whom he had purchased the commodity though was served with notice under section 14A of the PFA Act. In my opinion, it is duly proved that the respondent sold the food article i.e. aniseed which was damaged by insects and was added with non-permissible green colour and, therefore, committed offence under section 2 (ix) (d) r/w sec. 7 (ii) punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the PFA Act. It is also proved that he sold the aniseed containing the colouring matter and thereby contravened Rule (23) of the PFA Rules and hence, committed offence punishable under section 7 (ii), punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the PFA Act. 7 (ii) punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the PFA Act. It is also proved that he sold the aniseed containing the colouring matter and thereby contravened Rule (23) of the PFA Rules and hence, committed offence punishable under section 7 (ii), punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the PFA Act. It is also proved that he sold the food article without having license to deal in the sale of food articles and thereby, committed contravention of Rule 50 of the PFA Rules, r/w section 7 (ii), punishable under section 16 (1) (a)(ii) of the PFA Act. The impugned judgment is, therefore, unsustainable and will have to be set aside. The respondent is liable for punishment as stated hereinbefore. 17. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, though much time has elapsed from the incident and the reversal of judgment is after about twelve (12) years, yet, I am not inclined to take excessively lenient view. The Apex Court in "State of H.P. v. Narendra Kumar and another" (2004 AIR SCW 1168) C.) : 2004 ALL MR (Cri.) 1111 (S.C.), held that where the accused was erroneously acquitted by the Courts below prior to about two (2) decades, sentence of six (6) months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- would be appropriate. It is held in "Dayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan" 2004 AIR SCW 2465 : 2004 CRI.L.J. 2100 (S.C.) that strict adherence to the PFA Act and the Rules framed thereunder is essential for safeguarding the interest of consumers of articles of food. It is observed that the stringent laws will have no meaning if offenders could go away with mere fine. 18. Having regard to the legal position settled by the Apex Court, I have no hesitation in holding that the respondent is liable for sentence of six (6) months’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three (3) months more. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of acquittal, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Gangakhed in R.C.C. No. 211/1993, is set aside. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three (3) months more. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of acquittal, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Gangakhed in R.C.C. No. 211/1993, is set aside. The respondent is held guilty of offence under section 2 (ix) (d) r/w section 7 (ii), punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (i), Rule 23 r/w section 7 (ii), punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (ii) and Rule 50 r/w section 7 (ii), punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the PFA Act and the PFA Rules. He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months. The respondent shall immediately surrender to bail before the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Gangakhed. The learned Judicial Magistrate shall issue the arrest warrant against the respondent and secure presence of the respondent so as to undergo the sentence as mentioned above. The learned Judicial Magistrate shall report compliance to this Court within period of six (6) weeks from receipt of the writ.