The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the Public Analyst's report must provide a clear basis for deeming an article of food as adulterated.

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. 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