Respondents 1 to 3 in Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 1980 are the Pirayiri Co-operative Milk Supply Society, the President of the Society and the Secretary respectively. Respondent 4 therein is the revision petitioner in Cri.R.P. No. 26 of 1980. Respondents 1 to 4 in the appeal are accused 1 to 4 in S.T.C. No. 48 of 1978 on the file of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palghat. They were prosecuted for an offence under S. 7(1) read with S. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') on the ground that milk belonging to the Society under the direct management of the President and Secretary was sold by the salesman, 4th respondent, to the Food Inspector and the milk was found to be adulterated on analysis. The trial court, holding that the milk was not shown to belong to the Society, acquitted respondents 1 to 3. However, the trial court convicted the 4th respondent and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The Food Inspector has filed the appeal by special leave challenging the acquittal of respondents 1 to 3. Respondent 4 challenged his conviction before the Sessions Court, Palghat in Cri. Appeal No. 94 of 1979. The appeal was dismissed. He has filed the revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence entered against him. The parties will be referred to in this judgment by their rank in the Criminal Appeal. Respondent 4 has filed Cri.M.P. No. 765 of 1980 in Crl.R.P. 26 of 1980 seeking permission to urge additional grounds. Both sides have been heard in the matter.

2. The appellant is the Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality. His case is that on 25-8-1978 at about 4 p.m. while he (P.W. 1) was standing in front of P.W. 3's shop bearing No. 11/315, Cannara Street, Palghat, he saw respondent 4 coming in a bicycle carrying a zinc can and an aluminium can on the handle bar and another zinc can on the carrier. The Food Inspector called and questioned him and he stated that he was a milk vendor under the first respondent Society and was bringing the milk belonging to the Society for sale in Palghat town. P.W. 1 disclosed his identity and inspected the cans. One can was empty. The aluminium can contained 1 1/2 litres of milk. The can on the carrier having a capacity of 30 litres contained three litres of milk and respondent 4 informed the Food Inspector that it was buffalo milk. Food Inspector demanded 750 milli litres of buffalo milk from that can, gave him the notice under Form No. V of which a copy is Ext. P-1 which was acknowledged by respondent 4 as seen in Ext. P-1(a). The Food Inspector paid Rs. 1.65 being the price of the milk and respondent 4 granted a receipt, Ext. P-2. The milk purchased was divided into three equal parts and each part was poured in a clean and dry bottle. 20 drops of formaline were added to each bottle and the bottles were corked and sealed. The sample number assigned was 117. The bottles were then packed in brown paper and tied and labels containing the number and details of the sample were pasted on the bottles. Paper slips containing the signature of the L.H.A. and bearing No. 25 and Code No. and serial number were pasted on each bottle. The signatures of respondent 4 were taken on the packages so as to carry part on the packing paper and part on the paper slip. The sampling was done in the presence of a Peon, and P.W. 3 an independent witness. Food Inspector prepared a mahazar, Ext. P-3, signed by the witnesses as also by respondent 4.

2A. According to the Food Inspector, he prepared Form No. VII memorandum with copies and affixed the specimen impressions of the seal on them. One sample bottle together with copy of the Form VII memorandum containing the specimen impression of the seal was sent to the Public Analyst by registered post and another copy of the memorandum also containing the specimen impression of the seal was separat