JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.12.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Criminal Appeal No. 2(1)/2003. By the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj vide the judgment and order dated 13.12.2002 passed in CR Case No. 634/2001. This is a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (briefly "the PFA Act"). 2. The facts of the case may be briefly noted. 3. On 27.12.2000 at about 2:30 PM, the Food Inspector visited the grocery shop called M/S Santush Bhowmik to check the quality of food grains kept in the shop for sale. The Food Inspector took sample of Besan (gram power) by purchasing 600 gms after observing the formalities. He divided the sample into three equal parts and made three packets. One sample packet was sent to the Public Analyst at Guwahati and other two samples were deposited with the Local Health Authority. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample of Besan was found to be adulterated. After the Local Health Authority gave the sanction to prosecute, the Food Inspector as the complainant lodged a criminal complaint against the petitioners on 25.06.2001 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, which was registered as C.R. Case No. 634/2001. The petitioners are the vendor and the proprietor respectively of the grocery shop. When the petitioners were formally charged for adulteration, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined two witnesses, the Food Inspector as P.W. 1 and the office peon, who was the witness to the taking of sample, as P.W. 2. The defence did not adduce any evidence. From the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and the statements of the accused recorded u/s. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr. P.C.), the defence plea was of total denial. 5. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence adduced, other materials on record and after hearing the parties held that the prosecution could establish the charge u/s. 16/ 7 of the PFA Act against the petitioners beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, they were convicted under the aforesaid provisions and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for six months and to pay fine of Rs. Accordingly, they were convicted under the aforesaid provisions and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to suffer RI for thirty days more. 6. The petitioners then filed appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 2(1)/2003. The learned Sessions Judge by the judgment and order dated 02.12.2003 upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioners and dismissed their appeal. 7. Feeling aggrieved, they are before this Court in revision. 8. Heard Mr. T.C. Khatri, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B.S. Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent state. 9. Mr. Khatri, learned Senior Counsel has questioned the legality and correctness of the conviction and the consequential sentence on a number of grounds. But the primary focus of his argument is that there was no adulteration within the meaning of the PFA Act. He submits that it is a case of mixing of pea Besan with gram Besan which cannot be said to be an act of adulteration as defined under the aforesaid Act. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has referred to various provisions of the PFA Act and a number of decisions. He, therefore, prays for setting aside and quashing of the impugned conviction and sentence. 10. Mr. Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that the learned lower appellate Court had gone into the merits of the impugned conviction in detail and considering the limited scope of a revisional proceeding, this Court should not interfere in the conviction of the petitioners. 11. The rival submissions have been duly considered. 12. For better appreciation of the rival submissions, the report of the Public Analyst may be seen. It is dated 06-02-2001 and marked as Ext 12. The relevant portion of the report is extracted below for ready reference:- I further certify that I have / had caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample and declare the result of the analysis to be as follows:- and am of the opinion that the sample of Besan (Gram powder) is adulterated. 13. P.W. 1 is Shri A.C. Boro, the Food Inspector, who had taken the samples of the Besan. In his cross-examination, he admitted that as per the Ext. 13. P.W. 1 is Shri A.C. Boro, the Food Inspector, who had taken the samples of the Besan. In his cross-examination, he admitted that as per the Ext. 12 report the Besan was found adulterated but was silent as to how. He also admitted that pea powder is not injurious to health and that it is not inferior to gram powder. He stated that he did not know whether there was any prescribed standard for pea powder or whether adding of pea powder with gram powder is allowed or not. He clearly admitted that he did not know anything in this regard. He further stated that he could not say how the mixture of pea powder with gram powder affected the nature, substance and quality of gram powder. 14. Adulteration or adulterated is defined in section 2(ia) of the PFA Act. As per the said definition, there can be thirteen situations whereby adulteration can take place. But the report of the Public Analyst as well as the offence report filed before the learned trial Court are silent as to how the adulteration had taken place. 15. This Court in the case of Nikhil Ch. Saha Vs. State of Assam; reported in 2001 (3) GLT 56, which was also a case of mixture of powdered pea with Besan made from Bengal gram, held that the 'adulterated' being a defined expression, it was incumbent on the prosecution to allege adulteration by a pinpointed reference to the manner and the reasons for which the prosecution contends the food item to be adulterated. In the factual context of that case, which is identical with the present case, this Court held that the prosecution could not succeed in showing that the food item in question was adulterated and interfered with the conviction and sentence. 16. Rule 44A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 completely prohibits sale of Kesari gram, Kesari dal and Kesari dal flour in any form including in mixture with Bengal gram. It is not the case of the prosecution that Kesari gram or any of its variant has been mixed with Besan in the present case. Had it been so, it would have been a case of adulteration. 17. Rule 5 of the above Rules provides that the standards of quality of the various articles of food are as defined in the Appendices B, C and D to the Rules. Had it been so, it would have been a case of adulteration. 17. Rule 5 of the above Rules provides that the standards of quality of the various articles of food are as defined in the Appendices B, C and D to the Rules. Besan is dealt with in A. 18.04 of Appendix B, which says that Besan means the produce obtained by grinding dehusked Bengal gram (Cicer arietinum) and shall not contain any added colouring matter or any other foreign ingredient. Besan shall conform to the following standards - (a) Total ash -- Not more than 5 percent (b) Ash insoluble in dilute hydrochloric acid -- Not more than 0.5 percent. 18. Foodgrains is defined in A. 18.06. It says that foodgrains meant for human consumption shall be whole or broken kernels of cereals, millets and pulses. Amongst others, it should be free from Kesari in any form. 19. From a combined reading of the aforesaid provisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that pea powder would not be a foreign ingredient in so far Besan is concerned and mixing of pea powder with Besan made of Bengal gram would not per se amount to adulteration. 20. Moreover, on the basis of the evidence adduced, it would be very unsafe to convict the petitioners. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned conviction and sentence as recorded against the petitioners and affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court are hereby set aside. The petitioners are acquitted and set at liberty. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. Petition allowed