( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent who was prosecuted under sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Upon the evidence and on the admission of the accused the learned Magistrate found that the accused had sold milk but the learned Magistrate did not attach any value to the report Ex. 6 of the public analyst on the ground that the prosecution did not examine the public analyst. The learned Magistrate relied on Suleman Usman v. The State of Gujarat 2 G. L. R. 402 and observed that in view of this ruling a report of the Chemical Analyser could have no probative value and no weight could be attached to the report unless the report is full and complete and discloses the test or experiments performed by the Chemical Analyser the factual data revealed by such test or experiments and the reason which led the Chemical Analyser to form such factual data. In that case my learned brother with respect rightly rejected the contention that no weight should be attached to the report of the Chemical Analyser. My learned brother observed that the case of Emperor v. Happu I. L. R. 56 Allahabad 228 was not applicable after th