N. Krishnan Nair, J.

The petitioner herein was the 1st accused in S.T. No. 706 of 1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class-1, Kollam. The petitioner and two others were charged with the offences punishable under Ss.2(ia)(m) and 7(i) read with S.16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. After the trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused 2 and 3 not guilty of the offences alleged against them and acquitted them. The petitioner (1st accused) was found guilty and he was convicted under Ss.2(ia)(m) and 7(i) read with S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default or payment of fine to suffer imprisonment for a further period of three months. Against the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Crl. Appeal No. 56 of 1992 before the Sessions Judge, Kollam. The Sessions Court, Kollam by its judgment dated 4th June, 1993, dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of con viction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the trial court. Hence this revision.

2. The prosecution case briefly is as follows: On 29.4.1987 at about 5.30 p.m. P.W. 1, the Food Inspector, inspected the provision shop of the petitioner at Perinad in Thrikkadavur Panchayat. After revealing his identity and service of Form VI notice the Food Inspector, P.W. 1, paid Rs. 12/- towards its price for which the petitioner issued Ext. P3 voucher. P.W.1 divided the oil into three equal samples. The sampling was done in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Thiruvananthapuram, for analysis. The other two samples and Form VII memorandum, specimen impression of seal were forwarded to the District Food Inspector, Kollam. As per Ext. P11 report the Public Analyst reported that the sample of coconut oil analysed by him does not conform to the standards prescribed for the said article under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Thereupon the 1st respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner before the trial court. In obedience to the summons received from the trial court, the petitioner entered appearance and filed an application under S.20A of the Act praying that the 2nd and 3rd accused may be impleaded as additional accused, since the sample of coconut oil taken by the 1 st respondent was from a quantity purchased by the petitioner from the said accused persons. Accordingly accused 2 and 3 were impleaded.

3. When the particulars of the offence were read over to the accused, they pleaded not guilty. During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined on the side of the prosecution and Exts. P1 to P17 were marked. The defence examined five witnesses as D.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exts. Dl to D3.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that the order of the court below is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained either in law or in facts. According to learned counsel, the Food Inspector has violated the mandatory provisions contained in R.14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. He contended that there is no evidence in the case to show that the intermediary vessel used by the Food Inspector was made clean and dry as required by R.14 of the Rules. He further contended that the lower court has seriously erred in finding that the protection under S.19(2) of the Act is not available to the petitioner.

5. The first question that arises for consideration is whether there is violation of R.14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules in this case. The Rule requires the Food Inspector to take samples of food "in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers". In this case, admittedly the Food Inspector used an intermediary vessel for the purpose of purchasing the sample of coconut oil. There is absolutely no evidence in the case to show that the said vessel in which the Food