( 1 ) THE appellant has been convicted on 5-10-1966 by the City Magistrate 8 Court Ahmedabad for an offence under sec. 16 (1)Ca) (i) read with sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for selling adulterated milk. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case is set out in the deposition of the food inspector Shri P S. Sharma (Exh. 2 ). He states that on 17-1-1966 at about S15 A. M. when he was near the Asarwa Government Quarters with his peon Pawar he saw the appellant passing with a can containing milk and stopped him. The appellant had milk and measures with him. He called one Babulal Mohanlal and then asked the appellant about the quality and rate of the milk. The appellant told him that it was cows milk and the rate was 6 P. per 100 ml. Sharma purchased 700 ml. of milk for 42 P. and gave She appellant the duplicate copy of the intimation informing him that he as food inspector was taking the milk as sample for analysis. On the original of that intimation (Exh. 3) he obtained the thumb mark of the appellant. He divided the sample so taken into three bottles in each of which he added 16 drops formalin. He then corked sealed and labelled the bottles and obtained the signature of the panch Babulal Mohanlal on the labels and he also himself signed them. He wrapped all the bottles with thick paper and sealed them obtained the signature of the panch on the wrappers and he also signed them. He then gave one bottle to the appellant and obtained a receipt (Exh. 4) for that bottle and also for the money paid by him. The receipt was attested by Babulal Mohanlal. He identifies the thumb mark of the appellant on that receipt. Sharma proceeds to state that thereafter at about 11-30 A. M. he handed over one of the two bottles left with him with the necessary memo and specimen of seal impressions to Shri Vaghela who is of the office of the public analyst. Later he received the report of the public analyst showing that the milk was adulterated. He goes on to add that he then obtained the necessary sanction from the competent authority namely Dr. A. P. Dixit and filed the complaint. That sanction has been produced. Alongwith the complaint he sent to the court one of the bottles remaining with him and he identifies that bottle (article A) as also the wrapper on that bottle. The complaint Exh. 1 which he filed in court on 6-5-1966 alleges that the appellant sold adulterated milk with 14% of water and 37% less milk fat and that whereas the total solid non-fat should be 8. 5% it was in fact 7. 3% and whereas the milk fat should be 3. 5% it was in fact 2. 2%.

( 3 ) BEFORE referring to the appellants case it will be convenient to refer to the report of the public analyst. In that report which is at Exh. 5 the public analyst states that he received on the 17th of January 1966 from Shri P. S. Sharma food inspector a sample of cows milk taken on the morning of 17-1-66 properly sealed and fastened and that he found the seal intact and unbroken. In the report the result of the analysis is stated as disclosing 2. 2% fat and 7. 3% total solids non-fat and the report states that the fat deficiency was 37% and the addition of water was 14%. The report mentions that the sample sent contained formalin added as per rules by the food inspector. Shri Vaghela to whom the sample bottle was handed over by Sharma and who is as assistant to the principal Chemist was also examined at Exh. 13. I shall refer to his testimony later.

( 4 ) THE defence of the appellant was a total denial that he sold milk to the food inspector Sharma or that he received Exh. 3 or Exh. 4 or that he has signed any of those documents. He was unable to say why he was falsely implicated.

( 5 ) IN the lower court the principal witness was the food inspector Sharma who in h