P.G. Agarwal, J.

1. All the above three revisions have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgment as the question of law raised in these revisions are identical.

2. Heard Mr. J M Choudhury, Mr. B B Narzary and Mr. S S Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. F H Laskar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. The facts of Criminal Revision No. 394/2000 are detailed to appreciate the question of law raised. The petitioners before us are the vendor and owner of grocery shop M/S Mahadev Store. The Food Inspector collected sample of 'besan' by purchasing 600 gm of 'besan' against payment and after issuance of notice in Form No. VI the sample was sent to the public analyst who opined that the sample is adulterated. The prosecution was launched against the vendor as well as the owner of the said grocery shop. The trial court convicted the vendor as well as the owner of the shop for selling adulterated 'besan', which as per the public analyst report contained powdered rice and powdered pea to the extent of 5% each. The report of the public analyst has not been challenged.

4. During trial, the accused persons took up the plea of warranty