( 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 the amendment of section 510 Cri. Pro Code in 1955 by Act XXVI of 1955. My learned brother however accepted the contention that the report of the Chemical Analyser and the opinion of the Chemical Analyser had little or no value unless supported by reasons or factual data. In support of that contention a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Emperor v. Behram Irani 46 Bombay Law Reporter 481 was relied on. But that decision of the Bombay High Court relied on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Emperor v. happu I. L. R. 56 All. 228 on which my learned brother was not prep red to rely having regard to the amendment of section 510 Cri. Pro. Code. The Bombay High Court in Emperor v. Beharam Irani (supra) observed as follows:-- it is obvious however that the weight to be attached to such a report must depend to a considerable extent on the reasons which the Chemical Analyser gives for the conclusion which he has arrived at and in some cases as in the one before us where the matter to be reported one is the presence of certain substances in the article submitted for examination much would turn on the quantity of the incriminating substance found in the article. If the Chemical Analysers report alone is to be considered sufficient it should contain all the information which that officer himself would have been able to furnish if he had been examined as a witness. In the present case the report merely says that wheat products had been used in the manufacture of the cakes. The danger of accepting a mere report of the Chemical Analyser in criminal cases has been very forcibly pointed out by Young J. in Emperor v. Happu (supra ). It is true that the learned Magistrate offered though at a late stage to call the Chemical Analyser as a witness if the accused wanted him to do so and the accuseds counsel declined at that stage to avail himself of this order. But it was for the prosecution to prove that wheat products had been used in the manufacture of these cakes. . . . . . . . . . As already observed reliance is placed on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Emperor v. Happu (supra) which has no value after the amendment of sec. 510 Cri. Pro. Code and my learned brother himself refused to follow the Allahabad case on that ground.

( 2 ) THE Bombay case was also a peculiar one. Prom the report of the Chemical Analyser it appears that he merely gave an opinion that wheat products were used in the manufacture of cakes. As observed by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court where the report mentioned the presence of certain substances in the article submitted for examination much would turn on the quantity of the substances found in the article submitted for examination. Merely to state that products were found in the cakes without mentioning what the wh