JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition which was filed questioning correctness of the conviction for offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(1) and Section 2(i)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the `Act) and also under Rule 5 read with Appendix B, Item A.07.08 and Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short the `Rules). The appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation as recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kochi. The learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in appeal modified the sentence and reduced it to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On 22.5.2000 at about 4.00 p.m., the Food Inspector, P.W.1 inspected the shop of the appellant by name "Bejoy Fruits and Vegetables". He found four bottles of Sarbath (synthetic syrup) each of 700 ml. capacity, which were kept for sale. He bought one bottle of synthetic syrup, on paying Rs.40/-, Ex.P.4 being the voucher for payment. He sampled it according to the procedure. After analysis, he obtained Ex.P.12 report, which showed that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed under the rules and, therefore, was adulterated. Accordingly, he proceeded against the appellant. Since accused abjured guilt, trial was held.

4. Four witnesses were examined and 21 documents were marked on the side of the prosecution and three documents were marked on the side of the defence. After appreciation of the evidence, the appellant was found guilty, convicted and sentenced accordingly. Appeal by appellant resulted only in reduction of sentence. The revision petition did not bring any relief.

5. Stand before the High Court was that articles purchased by the Food Inspector (PW-1) were not kept for sale and as such the same were not the food articles. It was further submitted that there was no enquiry made by the Food Inspector as to whether these articles were kept for sale. The High Court did not accept the stand. Referring to the evidence of PW-1, it noted that PW-1 had introduced himself as Food Inspector and had expressed willingness to purchase 700 ml. of `synthetic syrup (Sarbath) which was kept for sale. He had purchased it after giving Rs.40/-. The High Court noted that if the articles were not kept for sale the question of selling it to the Food Inspector does not arise. It found that the articles purchased were for human consumable and were kept for sale and on analysis did not conform to the requirement. It held that there was no violation of Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules as claimed. Noting that the minimum sentence has been imposed, revision petition was dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no enquiry was conducted of the samples as to whether articles were kept for sale. It was further submitted that the articles were not meant for sale and, therefore, the said Rules have no application.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported the impugned order. Admittedly, the sample was collected by the Food Inspector after effecting purchase and had given the receipt. As rightly noted by the High Court the articles were intended for sale.

8. The complainant, Food Inspector, Cochin Circle has given evidence as PW1. He has spoken about Sarbath, the food article involved in this case from the shop of the accused and also the various formalities done by him in sampling the same. The fact that the sarbath was purchased from him is not disputed by the accused. When he was questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Cr.P.C) he conceded that he had sold sarbath to PW1. Further the sale of sarba