Proper procedure in food adulteration cases involves strict adherence to statutory requirements and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

1. The petitioner is the accused No. 1 in C. C. No. 16 of 1991 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. He was charged along with A - 2 and A - 3 and was convicted under S.7 and S.16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, 'the Act') and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. The other accused have been acquitted of the charges. The appeal filed by the petitioner in Crl. A. No. 150 of 1992 on the file of the I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, ended in dismissal and the conviction and sentence have been confirmed. Questioning the order this Crl. Revision Case has been filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21-8-91 at 12 noon the Food Inspector (P.W. 1) inspected the business premises of the petitioner, a General Stores at Mallepalli, Hyderabad, along with P.W. 2 his Attender. Sample was taken after due notice from an open gunny bag which was kept for sale. The sample was sent to the analyst and it was found that chana dal was adduced with kesari dal. The trial Court relying upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 found that the sample was adulterated and has convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above. The Appellate Court reappraised the entire evidence on record and also found that the sample purchased from the petitioner was adulterated. The contentions raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Court have been considered in detail and have been rejected.

3. The counsel for petitioner has vehemently contended before me that no independent witnesses have been examined in the case to prove Ex. P - 4, the mediator - nama for the seizure of the food article, and hence the sale of the food article by the petitioner itself is doubtful. It is to be seen that one witness has been called at the time of holding panchanama and he was also cited as a witness as L.W. 2. However, he could not be examined for the reason that he could not be traced. The Courts below have considered this aspect and held that the non - examination of this witness does not therefore vitiate the prosecution case relating to sale of food article.

4. It is next contended that R.12 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short, 'the Rules') has been violated. The Rule contains two limbs and both the limbs have been not complied by the prosecution and both the Courts below have not considered the violation of 1st limb of R.12 of the Rules.

5. The first limb of R.12 of the Rules provides that the Food Inspector shall give notice of his intention to take the sample, in the form No. VI then and there to the person from whom he takes sample and simultaneously also to the persons, if any, whose name was disclosed under S.14 - A of the Act. It is admitted that notice in due form has been given to the petitioner before taking sample. However no notice in Form - VI was given to A - 2 and A - 3 who were the wholesaler dealer nor any sample was taken from them. The contention is that the Food Inspector should have taken a sample from the wholesaler dealer also. This contention would assume importance if the Food Inspector had taken the samples from a sealed bag from the petitioner. In that event it becomes necessary that the samples from the wholesaler also were to be taken to verify whether the petitioner sold the food articles in the same form as it was purchased from the wholesale dealer. From a reading of this Section it cannot be said that sample from