1 Appellant is the Food Inspector, Tellicherry Municipality. He prosecuted the two respondents before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Tellicherry in S.T.C. No. 139/79 for possession and sale of adulterated pan supari punishable under S.16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) read with S.7(i) and (v) and 2(1a)(a) and (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules made thereunder as amended. First accused is the vendor and second accused was impleaded as the warrantor. Trial Court acquitted both of them. Hence this appeal.

2. Pw. l is an independent witness, who was present at the time of purchase and sampling. pw. 2 is the peon of the Food Inspector and pw.3 is the Food Inspector himself. Exts. P1 to P20 are the documents proved by pw.3. His evidence is supported by the depositions of Pws. 1 and 2. On the question of purchase, sampling and observance of the formalities according to the Act and Rules, pw.3 has given evidence only in general without going into the minute details of the observance of each and every formality. But he proved all the documents evidencing observance of the formalities enjoined by the Act and the Rules.

3. In this appeal we are mainly concerned onl