R. K. DASH, J.

( 1 ) THE judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balangir, under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, 'the Act') and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir, is under challenge in the present revision.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 19-5-1989 the Food Inspector, P. W. 1 purchased 750 ml. of milk from the accused, a hawker and after properly stirring to make it homogeneous divided into three equal parts, put each part in clean and dry bottle after adding 20 drops of formal in as preservative to each bottle and sent one bottle to the Public Analyst for examination and deposited the remaining two with Local Health Authority. On receipt of the report from the Analyst that the milk was adulterated, P. W. 1 submitted all the relevant papers to the Chief District Medical Officer, who on being satisfied accorded sanction, whereupon the accused was prosecuted. In compliance with the requirement of law, a copy of Analysts report was sent to the accused to enable him to exercise his right under section 13 (2) of the Act.

( 3 ) SINCE accused denied the accusation, the learned Magistrate proceeded with the trial in course of which prosecution examined witnesses and brought relevant documents, viz. , notice to the accused for purchase of sample, memorandum of impression of seal, postal receipt, Analysts report, etc. into evidence. The defence also examined some witnesses in order to prove that the pot of milk which the accused was carrying on the date of incident belonged to one Prabhas Sai and that the same was not meant for sale for human consumption. The learned Magistrate on assessment of evidence believed the prosecution version and consequently convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of. Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for one month. In appeal, trial courts judgment was affirmed.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the accused challenging the correctness of findings of both the courts below raised two fold contentions: firstly, that since the milk which the accused was carrying in a pot was not meant for sale for human consumption, the provisions of the Act were not attracted; and secondly, delayed intimation of the Analysts report more than three months after collection of sample seriously affected the valuable right of the accused to challenge the same as envisaged in section 13 (2) of the Act.

( 5 ) THE plea of the accused was that he was not a milk hawker an6l that on the date of incident he was bringing cow milk of Prabhas Sai to his house and in support of his such plea he examined himself as D. W. 1 and also Prabhas Sai as D. W. 3. By leading such evidence it was contended in both the courts below that since milk in question was not meant for sale for human consumption, initiation of the proceeding against him under the Act was illegal and without jurisdiction. The same plea has also been reiterated in the present revision.

( 6 ) THE word sale defined in section 2 (xiii) of the Act reads as under: sale with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means the sale of any article of food whether for cash or on credit or by way of exchange and whether by wholesale or retail, for human consumption or use, or for analysis, and includes an agreement for sale, an offer for sale, the exposing for sale or having in possession for sale of any such article and includes also an attempt to sell any such article. A plain reading of the aforesaid definition leaves no room for doubt that sale of any article of food to Food Inspector for analysis is also sale. Added to it, Honble Supreme Court in the case of Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation v. C. Gopalan and another, has held that sample of food purchased by the Food Inspector satisfies the definition of sale. In the aforesaid cas