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 Pradesh. After setting out the details of the analysis, the Public Analyst expressed the opinion that the sample `contained a small proportion of vegetable fat or oil foreign to pure ghee`. On receipt of this report, the Medical Officer of Health, Haidwani sanctioned the prosecution of the respondent and a complaint was thereafter laid before the Magistrate 1st Class by the Food Inspector. The respondent pleaded not guilty and entered on his defence. Subsequently, the second sample was got analysed by the Director, central Food Laboratory, who reported that his analysis disclosed a Reichert Value of 21-7 as against 22-5 of the Public Analyst. The opinion expressed by him as regards the sample of ghee which he analysed was the same as that of the Public Analyst, viz., that the sample was adulterated.

(3) THE defence of the respondent who admitted that he had sold the ghee, samples of which were the subject of analysis, but denied it was adulterated, was two-fold: (1) He had obtained the ghee which he sold from Jodhpur, (2) The sample must be held not to be adulterated on the basis of the decision of the Allahabad High court in State v. Malik Ram(1).

(4) THE plea by the respondent regarding the ghee sold having come from Jodhpur was made because if this were established under the rules framed under the Act, to which we shall later refer, the minimum Reichert value prescribed for ghee in the Jodhpur area was 21 and that minimum requirement was satisfied by the sample analysed. The respondent led evidence to prove his purchase from Jodhpur but the learned Magistrate did not accept this case.

(5) THE other defence was a point of law relying on the decision of a division bench of the Allahabad High court reported as State v. Malik Ram(1). The learned Judges who decided that case drew a distinction between ghee obtained from Cattle in the hill districts of Uttar Pradesh and those from cattle in the plains. This decision was relied on by the respondent because the ghee sold by him was noted as pahadi ghee by the Food Inspector. The learned Judges held that notwithstanding the terms of the rules to which we shall later refer, ghee obtained from hilly areas of Uttar Pradesh like Kumaun hills, could not be held to be adulterated if its Reichert value was equal to that prescribed for Himachal Pradesh which was mostly a hilly area. They therefore held that though the rules under the Food Adulteration Act prescribed a minimum Reichert value of 28 for ghee for the entire State of Uttar Pradesh, still if ghee from hill areas of the Uttar Pradesh State reached a minimum of 26 Reichert value, such ghee would not be `adulterated ghee`. We shall consider the correctness of this decision after completing the narrative of the proceedings. The learned Ma