Judgment :- A-1 and A-2 in S.T.C.No.27 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvur, West Godavari District were charged for the offence under Section 7 (i) (ia) (f) and Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, ‘the Act’). The trial Court found both the accused guilty of selling adulterated mineral water on 13.3.1999. The learned trial Judge imposed minimum sentence provided by the Act at six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- against each of the accused. Aggrieved by the same, both the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2002 before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. Through the impugned judgment, the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction as well as the sentence recorded by the trial Court. Both the accused preferred the present revision, questioning the judgment of the trial Court and the appellate Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd accused is the proprietor of M/s.Ramya Mineral Water and that the 1st accused is the Plant production and Sales in-charge of the same. P.W.1, who is the Food Inspector inspected the premises of M/s.Ramya Mineral Water on 13.3.1999. He purchased mineral water from the accused. The mineral water was sent for analysis. Through the report under Ex.P.15, it was found that the sample was not in conformity with the standards. Consequently, the prosecution was launched against both the accused. 3. Sri A.Ramakrishna, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners/accused submitted that mineral water was not a food item covered by the Act by the date of the inspection. It may be recalled that P.W.1 inspected the premises of A-1 and A-2 on 13.3.1999, purchased mineral water and drew samples. Entry A-33 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, ‘the Rules’)deals with packaged drinking water other than mineral water. Entry A-32 of the Rules deals with mineral water. The mineral water as well as packaged drinking water other than mineral water became part of the Rules w.e.f. 29.3.2001 only through orders in GSR 759 (E) and GSR 760 (e). The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners/accused pointed out that by 13.3.1999, mineral water and other packaged drinking water was not covered by the Act. The mineral water as well as packaged drinking water other than mineral water became part of the Rules w.e.f. 29.3.2001 only through orders in GSR 759 (E) and GSR 760 (e). The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners/accused pointed out that by 13.3.1999, mineral water and other packaged drinking water was not covered by the Act. Where entries under A-32 and A-33 in Appendix-B of the Rules came into force w.e.f. 29.3.2001, I agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that by the date of the inspection on 13.3.1999, mineral water and packaged water were not food items within the meaning of the Act and the Rules. Their adulteration or otherwise does not attract the provisions of the Act. The very launching of the prosecution against the accused and the conviction of the accused for the offence under the Act is misconceived. The accused are liable to be acquitted as there was no question of adulteration in respect of mineral water or packaged water by the date of the incident in this case. 4. The Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners also pointed out that there was violation of Section 13(2) of the Act leadingto grant of benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. When the very prosecution is misconceived, it would be futile exercise to go into the question of the violation of Section 13(2) of the Act. 5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners placed reliance upon the Judgments in G.Chandra Shekar Reddy V. State of A.P. 2002 (2) ALD (Crl.) 33 (AP) and Smt.I.Savitri V. State of A.P. 2006 (2) ALT (Crl.) 44 (A.P.).In both the cases, identical question as in this case arose. In both the cases, packaged water was seized by the Food Inspector. In one case, the inspection was on 4.12.1999. In another case, the inspection was on 13.3.2000. Thus, the inspection in both the cited cases were prior to 29.3.2001. The High Court held in these two cases that by the date of the inspection, water was not included as a food item and that the accused, therefore, could not be punished even if the samples were adulterated. The same is the situation in the present case. 6. The inspection in the present case was on 13.3.1999. Evidently mineral water and packaged water were not food items within the meaning of the Act by then. The same is the situation in the present case. 6. The inspection in the present case was on 13.3.1999. Evidently mineral water and packaged water were not food items within the meaning of the Act by then. Therefore, the very launching of the prosecution against the accused is misconceived. Both the revision petitioners, therefore, are liable to be acquitted as the samples seized from the revision petitioners were not a food item and were not covered by the Act. Somehow, it would appear that this aspect was not brought to the notice of the trial Court and appellate Court leading to erroneous finding by the trial Court and the appellate Court. 7. The revision, therefore, deserves to be allowed by setting aside the judgments of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court. Both the revision petitioners are found not guilty for the offence with which they are charged and consequently are acquitted. 8. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.