(1) THE acquittal of the appellant was upset by the High court on the ground that the contention of the appellant before the Trial Magistrate with regard to the infraction of Rules 14, 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 was not material and that the appellant should be held guilty for selling to the Food .Inspector substandard curds in which there was a shortfall of milk solid fats to the extent of .06%. The other ground for acquittal apparently seems to have been abandoned by the appellant before the High court which was to the effect that even though churning of the curds in the container in which it was lying for sale had not been done, but that was due to the fault of the vendor-appellant and not due to any neglect of duty on behalf of the Food Inspector.We have reservations about the legal requirement of stirring and churning to be performed by the vendor. In order to attain homogeneity in curds stirring and churning, as the case may be, becomes necessary for the ingredients of milk solid non-fat and milk solid fat getting a uniform consistency in order to determine the percentage in their completeness. Besides, if possible, curds need to be gi