N.R.AYYANGAR, J.

(1) THIS appeal which comes before us on a certificate of fitness granted by the High court of Allahabad under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution, is against a judgment of that court acquitting the respondent Kartar Singh of an offence under s. 7 read with s. 16 (1)(a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 which may be conveniently referred to as the Act.

(2) THE facts giving rise to the prosecution are briefly these: The respondent runs a shop at Haldwani and among the products sold by him is ghee. On 19/03/1960 a quantity of the ghee was purchased by the Food Inspector of the area and he put samples of the purchase into three phials which were sealed in the respondents presence. It may be mentioned that even in the seizure memo the Food Inspector noted the ghee purchased by him as `pahadi ghee`. One of the samples was forwarded to the Public Analyst to the government of Uttar Pradesh for analysis forascertaining whether the said ghee was adulterated.The analysis disclosed that in several respects the samplewas substandard and that in particular it had a ReichertValue of 22-5 as against the prescribed minimum of 28 for ghee in Uttar Pr