Judgment : The main question urged for a decision in this revision is whether an article of food can be said to be adulterated even if other edible seeds found in it are proved to be deleterious to health. 2. Petitioner before me stands convicted of offences punishable Under Section 2(i-a) (m) and 7(i) read with 16(1)(a)(i), (ii) of the prevention of food Adulteration Act (for short, "the Act") and Rule A-05.09 of Appendix B of the Food Adulteration Rules (for short, "the Rules") and sentenced to undergo imprisonment and payment of fine. Case is that on 26.6.1991 at about 1.00 p.m. the Food Inspector purchased 450 gms of cumin seed from petitioner at Shop No.KP-11/86. Food Inspector after complying with the formalities sent one of the sample parts to the public Analysis who reported that the same did not conform to the standards prescribed for cumin seed. Prosecution was launched on the basis of the report. On the request of petitioner the second part of the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory (for short "the CFL") for examination. Exhibit C1 is the report of CFL where it is stated that the sample contained edible seeds (dill seed) other than cumin seed more than 5% and thus the sample did not conform to the prescribed standard. Courts below found that petitioner committed the office attributed to him. It is contended in this revision that so far as it is not shown that other edible seeds (dill seed) is deleterious to health, it cannot be said that the sample of cumin seed was 'adulterated'. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Orissa High Court in Akrura Pradhan V. State of Orissa (1995 FAJ Orissa 409). Further contention is that contents of Ext.C1, report of the CFL were not put to the petitioner when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") and hence Ext.C1, cannot be used as evidence against the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Janardhanan V. State of Kerala (1978 KLT 546), State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh (AIR 1992 SC 2100) and Ram Niwas v. State (1995 Crl.L.J. 3491). It is also argued that prosecution is vitiated as Rule 14 of the Rules is violated. 3. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Janardhanan V. State of Kerala (1978 KLT 546), State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh (AIR 1992 SC 2100) and Ram Niwas v. State (1995 Crl.L.J. 3491). It is also argued that prosecution is vitiated as Rule 14 of the Rules is violated. 3. That, petitioner sold cumin seed to the Food Inspector on the relevant day and time is proved by evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exts.P2 to P5. Courts below have accepted that evidence and I do not find reason to interfere with that in this revision. 4. According to the Food Inspector, sample parts were collected in polythene covers. Petitioner would contend that polythene cover is not a suitable container as understood in Rule 14 of the Rules and thus the provision is violated. It is also contended that though Food Inspector (P.W.1) claimed that he had heat salted the polythene covers after sample parts were collected in it, there is no mention about that in Ext.P5, mahazar. So far as suitability of containers as referred to in Rule 14 is concerned, courts below took the view that Rule 14 is not mandatory. Counsel for petitioner relied on the decision in State of Punjab v. Raman Kumar (1998 Crl.L.J. 737) to support his contention regarding violation of the Rule. Learned Sessions Judge observed that in Raman Kumar's Case chilly powder was collected in polythene covers unlike the present case where the food article purchased is cumin seed which is a dry, hard substance. Learned Session Judge also observed that Rule 14 of the Rules is not exhaustive as to the kinds of containers to be made use of. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Harisankar v. Food Inspector (1988(2) KLT 381) learned Session Judge held that use of polythene cover cannot be said to be a violation of the Rule on the factual situation in this case. In Harisankar's case a Division Bench of this Court has held that Rule 14 does not exhaustively enumerate all the kinds of containers which could be used and that the rule does not create any inherent limitation or restriction except that the containers must be suitable. In that case the food article involved was peas dall. In Harisankar's case a Division Bench of this Court has held that Rule 14 does not exhaustively enumerate all the kinds of containers which could be used and that the rule does not create any inherent limitation or restriction except that the containers must be suitable. In that case the food article involved was peas dall. It was held that to preserve and safeguard such an article which itself is a dry, hard substance it need necessarily be put in a jar or bottle. The decision applies with all its vigour to the facts of this case. Here it is cumin seed which is a dry, hard substance. It is not shown that because it was collected in polythene covers and not in jars or bottles, it could not be preserved and safeguarded properly. The contention that Rule 14 is violated, therefore is not available to the petitioner. 5. So far as the contention that heat salting of polythene covers sated by the Food Inspector in his evidenced in Ext.P5, the mahazar prepared by him is concerned, omission to state so in the mahazar cannot be said to be fatal in the light of the evidence given by the food Inspector as P.W.1. Learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Food Inspector v. HariKumar (1990 (1) KLT 36). The Food Inspector was discharging his official duty. Its regularity has to be presumed until that presumption is rebutted. The Food Inspector has given evidence that he had heat salted the polythene covers. Exhibits C1, report of the CFL shows that the cover was in fact. There is no material on record to show that the presumption in favour of regularity of official acts is rebutted. Hence that contention is not available to the petitioner. 6. Yet another contention advanced by the learned counsel is that in Ext.P9, report of public Analyst there is no mention about the presence of dill seeds in the sample part. It is only in Ext.C1, report of the CFL that such a finding is made. Learned counsel would say that P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 were not able to say anything about the presence of dill seeds in the sample part notwithstanding that they are experts in the matter. 7. It is the settled position of law hat report of the CFL would supersede the report of the public Analyst. Learned counsel would say that P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 were not able to say anything about the presence of dill seeds in the sample part notwithstanding that they are experts in the matter. 7. It is the settled position of law hat report of the CFL would supersede the report of the public Analyst. Exhibit P9 thus stands superseded by Ext.C1. Hence for no purpose whatsoever, Ext.P9 can be looked into. In Ext.C1 it is specifically stated that examination revealed presence of edible seed (dill seed) in excess of the permitted quantity. As per Rule A.05.09 of Appendix B of the Rules the proportion of extraneous matter including dust, stones, Lumps of earth, Chaff, stem or straw shall not exceed 7% by weight and the proportion of edible seeds other than cumin seed shall not exceed 5% by weight. In this case presence of other edible seeds exceeded that limit. Mere fact that P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 were not able to identify the presence of dill seeds with naked eye or by examination in the laboratory is no ground to discard Ext.C1 so far as it is not shown that the finding in Ext.C1 is unreliable. 8. More forcible contention is that so far as it is not shown that other edible seeds found in the sample part are deleterious to health it cannot be said that the sample of cumin seed is adulterated. In Akrura Pradhan's case (referred supra) jeera was found to be mixed with other edible seeds in excess of the permitted limit. Report did not indicate that the food article was deleterious to health. A learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court held that it could not be said that the food article is 'adulterated' within the meaning of Sec.2(i) of the Act. 9. As per Sec.2(i-a) of the Act an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated, "(a) if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be". 9. As per Sec.2(i-a) of the Act an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated, "(a) if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be". Sub clause (m) of Sec.2(i-a) of the Act states, "If the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health: Provided that, where the quality or Purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability in either case, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, then, such article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this sub-clause". Explanation:- Where two or more article of primary food are mixed together and the resultant article of food- (a) is stored, sold or distributed under a name which denotes the ingredients thereof; and (b) is not injurious to health, then, such resultant article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this clause". Section 2(xii-a) of the Act defines "primary food" as meaning any article of food, being a produce of agriculture or horticulture in the natural form. 'Cumin seed' is a produce of agriculture in its natural form and hence an article of primary food. For application of the explanation quoted above, the resultant article of primary food obtained by mixing two or more articles of primary food, even if not injurious to health must be stored, sold or distributed under a name which denotes the ingredients thereof. In this case, the article of primary for sold, i.e. cumin seed was not stored or sold under a name which denoted its ingredients, Viz., cumin seed and dill seed. Hence the explanation has no application to the facts of this case. In this case, the article of primary for sold, i.e. cumin seed was not stored or sold under a name which denoted its ingredients, Viz., cumin seed and dill seed. Hence the explanation has no application to the facts of this case. In order to seek protection of the proviso to sub-clause (m) of Sec. 2 (1-a) of the Act the vender has to prove two thinks; presence of extraneous matter in the article which is not deleterious to health was: (1) solely due to natural causes and, (2), beyond the control of human agency. So far as explanation to the proviso quoted above does not apply, it is irrelevant whether the extraneous matter found in the food article be it an article of primary food, is deleterious to human health or not, if the said conditions are not satisfied. For, if a food article is sold by the vender which is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or not of the nature, substance or quality it purports or represented to be, it amounted to adulteration of that food article. In this case food Inspector purchased cumin seed from the petitioner. That food article is found to contain another edible seed beyond the permitted limit. As already observed, the food article was not stored or sold under a name which denoted the ingredients thereof. That means food article was not of the nature, substance and quality demanded by the Food Inspector. In other words the nature, substance and quality demanded by the Food Inspector was of cumin seed the extraneous matter of which did not exceed the limit permitted by Rule A.05.09 of Appendix B referred to above. It is true that dill seeds found in the food article (cumin seed) is not proved to be deleterious to health. But, petitioner has not proved that presence of dill seeds was solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency. That cumin seed is not produced in the state of kerala and is brought from beyond the state is no defence at all. Therefore it has to be concluded that the food article was 'adulterated' as understood in Sec.2(i-a) of the Act. I am unable to accept reasoning of the Orissa High Court in Akrura Pradhan's case. Sub-clause (m) of Sec.2(i-a) was not considered in that case. Therefore it has to be concluded that the food article was 'adulterated' as understood in Sec.2(i-a) of the Act. I am unable to accept reasoning of the Orissa High Court in Akrura Pradhan's case. Sub-clause (m) of Sec.2(i-a) was not considered in that case. I draw support for the view I have taken from the decision of the Supreme Court in Manibai v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1974 SC 434). That was a case of purchase of sample of coconut oil. On analysis butyro refractometer reading and iodine value were found to be in excess. A contention was raised that offence proved is of a technical nature as it is not shown that coconut oil purchased was deleterious to health. Supreme Court held that. "in a prosecution for sale of adulterated article of food it is not for the prosecution to show that the article was deleterious to health and if so how much harmful effect it would have upon the health of the person consuming it. All that I required to be shown is that the article of food in question was adulterated". As per Sec.2 of the Act an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if inter alia the quality or purity of the article falls bellow the prescribed limits of variability. That decision applies to the facts of this case as well. 10. It is then contended that contents of Ext.C1 were not put to the petition when questioned under Sec.313 of the Code and hence Ext.C1 cannot be used as evidence against the petitioner. According to learned counsel that caused prejudice to the petitioner. 11. Decision relied on then learned counsel and referred above highlighted the necessity for questioning an accused on the in criminating evidence against him. Principle laid down in the above decisions is that questioning of the accused after the evidence of prosecution is recorded is not an empty formality but a mandatory requirement of the law to be complied with strictly, true to the letter and spirit of Sec.313 (1)(b) of the Code. Questioning is meant to give the accused an opportunity to explain the incriminating evidence or other circumstances against him. If that is not done be such in criminating evidence or circumstances cannot be used against the accused. Questioning is meant to give the accused an opportunity to explain the incriminating evidence or other circumstances against him. If that is not done be such in criminating evidence or circumstances cannot be used against the accused. But the question whether the provision is complied with or not has to be decided on the facts of each case. In this case on going through the statement of petitioner under Sec.313(1)(b) of the code it is seen that Ext.C1 was put to the petitioner and his explanation was sought though details of the contents of Ext.C1 were not put to him. It is not as if Ext.C1 was not put to the petitioner. Petitioner has been provided with a copy of Ext.C1 even before trial started. He was aware, it has to be presumed so at least of the contents of Ext.C1. At least when the certificate is introduced in evidence and marked as Ext.C1 petitioner should have been aware of its contents. When Ext.C1 was put to the petitioner it amounted to the petitioner being alerted about its contents and his explanation sought about that. Then petitioner has no reason to complain that he is prejudiced. I am supported in this view by the decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Venga Gopalan (1994(2) KLJ 507). There, while questioning the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code the report obtained from the laboratory was put to him. It was held that non-furnishing of the details of the report to the accused was not fatal. Petitioner cannot therefore contend that there was no proper examination under Sec.313(1)(b) of the Code. On going through the judgments under challenge and submission of learned counsel I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner. 12. So far as sentence is concerned it is not disputed that the food article purchased by the Food Inspector comes within the category of 'primary food'. Minimum sentence provided for offence of this nature relating to primary food under Sec.16(1) proviso (i) of the Act is imprisonment for three months and fine which shall not be less than Rs.500/-. Petitioner is a petty trader and it is not disputed that cumin seed was supplied to the petitioner from beyond the State. It is not shown that petitioner is involved in any other case of similar nature. Petitioner is a petty trader and it is not disputed that cumin seed was supplied to the petitioner from beyond the State. It is not shown that petitioner is involved in any other case of similar nature. Considering these circumstances and the age of the petitioner I am satisfied that simple imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs.500/-would suffice the ends of justice. Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the extent that imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is modified as simple imprisonment for three months, fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. Registry shall send the records of the case to the trial Court. Bail bond executed by the petitioner is cancelled. Criminal Miscellaneous petition No.1901 of 2000 shall stand dismissed.