The main legal point established is that the storage of adulterated food, regardless of the intent of sale, is an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

1. One a complaint made by the Municipal Health Officer, Kozhikode, who in his capacity as a Food Inspector appointed under S.9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (Central Act 37 of 1954) has been authorised under S.20(1) thereof to institute prosecutions, the accused, a wholesale merchant of Kozhikode, dealing in pepper among other merchandise, was tried by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode, for an offence punishable under S.16(1)(a)(i) read with S.7 of the Act, the accusation against him being that he stored for sale 62 bags of pepper which was both adulterated and misbranded within the definitions in S.2(i)(1) and (ix)(d) of the Act. He was acquitted by the learned magistrate on the ground that it had not been proved that the pepper in question was stored for sale, and the complainant has brought this appeal against the acquittal by special leave under S.417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. (From the complaint, the judgment and other proceedings in the case, one would think that there were two accused persons, but the name of Punsi Desai and Sons shown as the name of the 1st accused is only the name in which the 2nd accused, Punsi Desai, does his business. The 2nd accused is the sole proprietor of the business and there is in reality no firm. The name of the 1st accused will therefore be struck off and the person named as the 2nd accused will be regarded as the sole accused in the case.)

3. The following facts are proved and are not disputed: On 10-1-1957, P.W. 1, a Sanitary Inspector of the Kozhikode Municipality and a Food Inspector under the Act, went to the accused's place of business and inspected it in the presence of the accused. He found there 62 bags of pepper (along with other stocks of the commodity) some of which were completely filled and the rest of which were being filled. Thirteen of these bags bore the label, "510 Best Pepper Calcutta;"; 18 the label, "Ashok Calcutta;" 13 the label, "Nalini Best Pepper Calcutta;" and the remaining 18 the label, "Jaya Calcutta". He took two samples from each of these four lots in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. On analysis the two samples taken from the first lot were found to contain 40 per cent of deteriorated and light berries and 3.8. per cent and 3.6 per cent respectively of mineral oil; the samples taken from the second lot were found to contain 1.1 per cent and 0.9 per cent of mineral oil; the samples from the third lot were found to contain 40 per cent of deteriorated and light berries and 3 per cent and 3.3 per cent respectively of mineral oil; and the samples taken from the fourth lot were found to contain 1.2 per cent of mineral oil.

4. The maximum permissible limit for deteriorated and light berries in pepper is 8 per cent in accordance with the standard of quality prescribed by clause A. 05.07 in Appendix B to the rules made under the Act, and that the pepper in the four samples found to contain 40 per cent of deteriorated and light berries was an adulterated article of food within the definition in S.2(i) (1) read with S.2(v) of the Act, is not disputed. It follows therefore that the accused did store adulterated food.

5. It was also the case of the complainant that the pepper in all the eight samples was misbranded in that it contained varying quantities of mineral oil, a substance foreign to pepper. It was argued before us that the presence of the mineral oil makes the pepper "misbranded" within the definition in clauses (d) and (j) of S.2(ix). But there is no evidence in support of the allegation in the complaint that the addition of mineral oil was to make it appear that the pepper was better or of greater value than it really was so as to attract clause (d). Nor is there any evidence to show that the mineral oil was an artificial flavouring or colouring matter, or a chemical preservative, so as to attract clause 0). And so far as the evidence goes, it would appear that it is a co