( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the Municipal Board of Falzabad against an order of acquittal of the respondents passed by the Sessions Judge of Faizabad of an offence under Section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 which order of acquittal was passed fay him in appeal against an order of conviction by a Magistrate.

( 2 ) THE respondents had a shop in mohalla Chauk in Faizabad where they sold tea and for the purpose of selling tea they stored milk also which is a necessary ingredient for the preparation of tea. Though Sewak Ram respondent is described as a proprietor and Lal Chand as the servant, it appears from the receipt Ex. Ka-3 that they are partners of the shop. On 26th October, 1961 at 8 a. m. the Food Inspector took a sample of milk purporting to be cows milk from Lal Chand weighing 3/4th of a seer and sealed it in three bottles and paid a sum of. 37 np. to him as Its price. One of the bottles was kept by the Food Inspector, one was sent to the Public Analyst U. P. and one was handed over to Lal Chand from whom the milk was purchased. The report of the public Analyst indicated that the sample contained fat to the extent of 2. 7 per cent and non-fatty solids to the extent of 4. 6 per cent. The deficiency in fat contents was thus 23 per cent and non-fatty solids about 46 per cent. It was on these facts that the two respondents were prosecuted.

( 3 ) BOTH of them pleaded not guilty. They admitted the taking of the sample by the Food Inspector but their defence was that the milk was not meant for sale but was meant for being mixed with tea. There is thus no doubt that one of the respondents on his own behalf and as a partner on behalf of the other did sell milk for analysis to the Food Inspector from his shop where he had kept it for preparing tea.

( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge held that as the milk had not been stored for the purpose of sale but had been stored for the purpose of preparing tea which was to be sold and not milk, no offence had been committed under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954. He also held that the certificate of the Public Analyst was not in the prescribed form as required under Section 13 (1) of the Act. A third point was also raised before him but it was not decided. It was to the effect that the link evidence had not been produced to establish that the sample which was sent to the Public Analyst was the same sample that had been taken from him by the Food Inspector. On the findings on the two points stated above he acquitted the respondents who had been convicted by the Magistrate.

( 5 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the Municipal Board, Faizabad, and the learned counsel for the respondents and are cf opinion that the respondents have been wrongly acquitted. The learned Sessions Judge relied on a decision of this Court, Narain Das v. State, reported in 1961 all LJ 663 : (AIR 1962 All 82), which lays down that the word stored in Section 7 of the Act means storing for sale and storing for the purposes other than sale does not constitute an offence under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He has, however, Ignored another aspect of the matter. No doubt the respondent could not be convicted for storing the milk at their shop which was of the quality or purity below the prescribed standard, as the milk was not stored for sale but was stored for mixing it with tea which was sold at their shop hut they did sell milk to the Food Inspector and the selling of adulterated milk was itself an offence.

( 6 ) UNDER Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, no person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute any adulterated food. Not only is the storing of the adulterated food an offence but the selling of such food also is an offence.

( 7 ) UNDER Section 2 (xiii) sale with its grammatical variations and cognate expr