JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 17-02-2004, passed, in Criminal Appeal No. 3(4)/2003, by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal by upholding the judgment and order, dated 27-10-2003, passed, in CR Case No. 405 of 1998, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, convicting the accused-appellant, namely, Manoranjan Nath, under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PFA Act') and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days. The case of the prosecution may, in brief, be described as under: Accused Manoranjan Nath is the proprietor of Tarun Grinding Mills, SM Road, Tarapur, Silchar. On 30-08-1997, at about 1 pm, Food Inspector (PW1), accompanied by his office Peon (PW2), visited the premises of the said mill and, having found kept there mixed masala powder of Zeera (Cumin) and Dhania (Coriander) for sale, gave to accused, Manoranjan Nath, a notice, in Form XVI, expressing his intention to purchase a sample of the said mixed masala powder in order to get the same analyzed and, then, having paid a sum of Rs.18/-, purchased and took 300 grams of the said mixed masala powder. Before serving the said notice and purchasing 300 grams of the said mixed masala powder, the Food Inspector had requested some customers, who were present, in the premises of the said mill, to become witnesses to his act of taking of sample. However, as none was willing to become a witness, the Food Inspector requested his office Peon, who, in turn, became a witness to the purchase of sample by the Food Inspector. One part of the sample, as required by the provisions of the PFA Act and the rules framed thereunder, was sent, for analysis, to the Public Analyst, Assam, who opined that the said mixed masala powder was adulterated. 2. Based on the report, so submitted by the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector, having obtained requisite sanction for prosecution of accused, Manoranjan Nath, submitted a complaint, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, seeking prosecution of the accused under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the PFA Act. 2. Based on the report, so submitted by the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector, having obtained requisite sanction for prosecution of accused, Manoranjan Nath, submitted a complaint, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, seeking prosecution of the accused under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the PFA Act. After institution of the case, a notice, in terms of the requirement of Section 13(2) of the PFA Act, was also sent by registered post to the accused. 3. At the trial, a charge, under Section 7 read with Section 16 of PFA Act, was framed against the accused. To the charge, so framed, the accused pleaded not guilty. 4. In support of its case, prosecution examined two witnesses, namely, the Food Inspector and his office Peon. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by him. The case of the defence being, in substance, thus: The accused does not sell any article of food and he merely grinds various articles of food, which people bring to his mill for grinding. The said mixed masala powder was not stored or exposed for sale and that the said powder was not adulterated inasmuch as the Public Analyst's report and/or the materials on record did not make out a case of sale of adulterated article of food by the accused. The defence, too, adduced evidence by examining two witnesses including the accused himself. 5. Having, however, found the accused guilty of the offence charged with, learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, the accused, as a convicted person, preferred an appeal. As the appeal has been dismissed, the accused, as petitioner, is, now, before this Court, putting to challenge, with the help of the present revision, the finding of guilt reached against him and the consequential sentence, which has been passed. 6. I have heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned Counsel for accused-petitioner, and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 7. As the appeal has been dismissed, the accused, as petitioner, is, now, before this Court, putting to challenge, with the help of the present revision, the finding of guilt reached against him and the consequential sentence, which has been passed. 6. I have heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned Counsel for accused-petitioner, and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 7. While considering present revision, it is pertinent to note that apart from taking the defence that he is not a seller of any article of food and he merely grinds whatever articles of food are brought to his mill and, therefore, ought not to have been held guilty of selling adulterated article of food, the accused-petitioner took the defence that the Public Analyst's report does not prove that the said mixed masala powder was adulterated article of food inasmuch as there is no standard, which has been laid down for such mixed masala powder and which could not have rendered the said powder an adulterated article of food, particularly, because wheat, which had been allegedly found in the said masala powder, has no prescribed standard and wheat is, otherwise also, not injurious to health. 8. The learned trial Court, while agreeing that wheat is not harmful, pointed out that wheat is not a spice and though there is no specific standard prescribed for mixed powder of Zeera and Dhania, the standard prescribed for wheat, in A.18.06.01, needs to be taken as the basis and since in wheat, other edible item cannot be more than 6% by weight, the article of food, in question, was adulterated inasmuch as the Public Analyst had found 10% added wheat powder, whereas the limit is 6%. Based on the conclusions so reached, the learned trial Court convicted the accused-petitioner and the learned appellate Court, without entering into the question as to how the article of food, in the present case, could have been treated as an adulterated one, upheld the conviction and the sentence passed against the accused-petitioner. 9. While considering the present revision, it is of paramount importance to note that Section 2(ia) of the PFA Act, which defines as to when an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated, contains as many as 13 different situations, when an article of food shall be regarded as adulterated. 10. 9. While considering the present revision, it is of paramount importance to note that Section 2(ia) of the PFA Act, which defines as to when an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated, contains as many as 13 different situations, when an article of food shall be regarded as adulterated. 10. In the present case, the report of the Public Analyst is completely silent as to how he formed the opinion that the mixed masala powder, in the present case, shall be deemed to be adulterated. It is duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against an accused, who is prosecuted. 11. Under the PFA Act, since an accused is tried and convicted on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, it is imperative that the Public Analyst not merely gives his opinion as to whether the article of food, sent to him, for analysis, is or is not adulterated, but he must also give his finding as to how he has come to form opinion that the article of food is adulterated. 12. In the present case, the report of the Public Analyst, does not, admittedly, indicate what was the standard, which ought to have been adhered to, and/or how the article of food, in the present case, could have been prescribed as adulterated one. The reference, which the learned trial Court has made to A. 18.06.01 regarding wheat, is wholly inapplicable in the present case inasmuch as A. 18.06.01 lays down the standard of wheat and as to when wheat can be described as adulterated. As the Public Analyst has assigned no reason as to how and why he had come to the conclusion that the article of food, in the present case, shall be deemed to be adulterated and when there is, admittedly, no prescribed standard for mixed masala powder, the report of the Public Analyst ought to have been treated by the learned trial Court as wholly vague and unfit to be made basis for prosecution, far less conviction of a person. The fact that the report of the Public Analyst was wholly vague and did not reveal to either the accused or to the Court as to how the Public Analyst had come to form his opinion that the article of food was adulterated, appears to have escaped completely the attention of the learned appellate Court. 13. The fact that the report of the Public Analyst was wholly vague and did not reveal to either the accused or to the Court as to how the Public Analyst had come to form his opinion that the article of food was adulterated, appears to have escaped completely the attention of the learned appellate Court. 13. Situated thus, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the prosecution of the accused-petitioner was, in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case and the law relevant thereto, wholly impermissible and illegal. The finding of guilt, reached on the basis of such a report, ought not to have been upheld and cannot be upheld. 14. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this revision succeeds. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence are hereby set aside. The accused-petitioner is held not guilty of the offence, which he was charged with, and he is acquitted of the same. 15. With the above observations and directions, this revision shall stand disposed of. Send back the LCR.