1. These two appeals have come up before us, the former being referred by Khalid J. on the ground that there is a seeming conflict of opinion between the decisions in Food Inspector v. Ittyavirah (1972 K.LT. 942) and Food Inspector v. Karunakaran (1973 KLT. 595) and the latter by one of us, as the point involved in both the cases was the same Both these appeals arising under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act. are directed against orders of acquittal. Criminal Appeal No. 339/75 is filed by the Food Inspector, Municipal Council, Alwaye, challenging the order of acquittal of respondents 1 and 2, who were accused 1 and 2 respectively before the trial court. The first respondent is the Ksheeravyavasaya Copperative Society represented by its Secretary and the second respondent is a salesman under the Society. In the afternoon of March 28, 1974 the Food Inspector (Pw.1) purchased 660 ml. of buffalo milk from the second respondent who was carrying a larger quantity of buffalo milk for sale and the same was sampled and divided into three equal parts in accordance with the provisions of the Act. One of these parts was sent for analysis and as per Ex. P6, the report of the Public Analyst, the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed and in addition it contained not less than 25% of added water and was therefore adulterated. The first respondent was discharged as there was no prima facie case made out against the Society and the second respondent although admitted the sale of the sample in question to pw.1, contended that no reliance can be placed on Ex. P6 report.

2. Crl. Appeal No. 293/75 is filed by the Food Inspector, Changanacherry Municipality, questioning the legality and correctness of the order of acquittal of the respondent therein who was tried by the judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Changanacherry, for an offence punishable under S.7 read with S 16 of the Act read with the rules framed there under on the allegation that he sold 660 ml. of cow milk in the morning on December 12,1972 to the Food Inspector, Changanacherry Municipality (Pw.1) and that the same on analysis was found to be adulterated. Ex P5, the report of the Public Analyst, showed that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for cow milk The only contention raised by the respondent before the trial court was that Ex P5 report is not reliable and acceptable.

3. It was on this basis that the Food Inspectors in the respective cases added 18 drops of formalin instead of 16 drops as preservative to the samples and relying on the decision of this Court in Food Inspector v. Ittyavirah (1972 KLT. 942) that the respondents contended before the respective trial courts that the report of the Public Analyst could not be accepted as reliable and correct. The trial courts relying on the above said ruling acquitted the respondents.

4. Sri. V. M Kurian, learned advocate appearing for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 339/75 strongly attacked the order of acquittal on various grounds. It is contended that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the report of the Public Analyst has in any way been adversely or prejudicially affected, that there has been sufficient and substantial compliance of R.20 which is only directory, that the report of the Public Analyst shows that f e sample has not decomposed and was in a fit state for analysis and that addition of a slight percentage of formalin in excess of what is prescribed under the rule cannot affect the result of the analysis. The counsel also invited our attention to two Full Bench decisions of this Court in State of Kerala v. Vasudevan Nair (1974 KLT. 617) and State of Kerala v. Mammu Musaliar (1974 KLT. 792) and also to a decision reported in Food Inspector v. Karunakaran (1973 KLT. 595) in addition to an unreported decision of this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 198 of 1973.

5. At the very outset, Sri Kurian submitted that he is no