The main question urged for a decision in this revision is whether an article of food can be said to be adulterated even if other edible seeds found in it are proved to be deleterious to health.

2. Petitioner before me stands convicted of offences punishable Under Section 2(i-a)

(m) and 7(i) read with 16(1)(a)(i), (ii) of the prevention of food Adulteration Act (for short, "the Act") and Rule A-05.09 of Appendix B of the Food Adulteration Rules (for short, "the Rules") and sentenced to undergo imprisonment and payment of fine. Case is that on 26.6.1991 at about 1.00 p.m. the Food Inspector purchased 450 gms of cumin seed from petitioner at Shop No.KP-11/86. Food Inspector after complying with the formalities sent one of the sample parts to the public Analysis who reported that the same did not conform to the standards prescribed for cumin seed. Prosecution was launched on the basis of the report. On the request of petitioner the second part of the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory (for short "the CFL") for examination. Exhibit C1 is the report of CFL where it is stated that the sample contained edible seeds (dill seed) other than cumin seed more than 5% and thus the sample did not conform to the prescribed standard. Courts below found that petitioner committed the office attributed to him. It is contended in this revision that so far as it is not shown that other edible seeds (dill seed) is deleterious to health, it cannot be said that the sample of cumin seed was 'adulterated'. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Orissa High Court in Akrura Pradhan V. State of Orissa (1995 FAJ Orissa 409). Further contention is that contents of Ext.C1, report of the CFL were not put to the petitioner when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") and hence Ext.C1, cannot be used as evidence against the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Janardhanan V. State of Kerala (1978 KLT 546), State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh (AIR 1992 SC 2100) and Ram Niwas v. State (1995 Crl.L.J. 3491). It is also argued that prosecution is vitiated as Rule 14 of the Rules is violated.

3. That, petitioner sold cumin seed to the Food Inspector on the relevant day and time is proved by evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exts.P2 to P5. Courts below have accepted that evidence and I do not find reason to interfere with that in this revision.

4. According to the Food Inspector, sample parts were collected in polythene covers. Petitioner would contend that polythene cover is not a suitable container as understood in Rule 14 of the Rules and thus the provision is violated. It is also contended that though Food Inspector (P.W.1) claimed that he had heat salted the polythene covers after sample parts were collected in it, there is no mention about that in Ext.P5, mahazar. So far as suitability of containers as referred to in Rule 14 is concerned, courts below took the view that Rule 14 is not mandatory. Counsel for petitioner relied on the decision in State of Punjab v. Raman Kumar (1998 Crl.L.J. 737) to support his contention regarding violation of the Rule. Learned Sessions Judge observed that in Raman Kumar's Case chilly powder was collected in polythene covers unlike the present case where the food article purchased is cumin seed which is a dry, hard substance. Learned Session Judge also observed that Rule 14 of the Rules is not exhaustive as to the kinds of containers to be made use of. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Harisankar v. Food Inspector (1988(2) KLT 381) learned Session Judge held that use of polythene cover cannot be said to be a violation of the Rule on the factual situation in this case. In Harisankar's case a Division Bench of this Court has held that Rule 14 does not exhaustively enumerate all the kinds of containers which could be used and that the rule does not create any inherent limitation or restriction except that the containers must