The judgment establishes the admissibility of the Public Analyst's reports as evidence, the significance of compliance with prescribed standards, and the prejudicial effect of delay in filing the complaint under S.13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

1. The appellant is the Food Inspector, Cochin Corporation. On 17 111971 he purchased from the accused-respondent samples of cow milk and buffalo milk after going through the formalities prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Public Analyst, on analysis, reported that the cow milk contained. 4.2 per cent of milk fat as against the minimum of 3.5 per cent fixed for Kerala in Appendix A 11 0111 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and 7.5 per cent of milk solids not-fat as against the minimum of 8.5 fixed under the Rules. The buffalo milk was found to contain 6.9 per cent of milk fat and 7.0 per cent of milk solids-not-fat as against the minimum of 5.0 per cent and 9.0 per cent respectively fixed under the Rules. The Public Analyst stated that the samples did not conform to the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration R.1955 and were, therefore, adulterated. The Public Analyst was also of opinion that the cow milk contained not less than 11 per cent and the buffalo milk not less than 22 per cent of added water as calculated from the milk solids-not-fat content. No decomposition had taken place that would interfere with the analysis. A complaint was filed for contravention of S.7(i)(v) read with S.2(i)(a) and (1) and 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and R.44(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration R.1955. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, who tried the case, observed:

"if water is added to the standard cow's milk or buffalo's milk the percentage of water content should necessarily go up causing thereby a corresponding reduction in the percentage of milk fat and also milk solids-not-fat. There cannot be a mere reduction in the percentage of milk solids not-fat alone. It will be noted that in the instant case the percentage of milk fat in the samples is considerably higher than the minimum prescribed. The prosecution therefore has a duty to explain as to how when the milk-fat content is considerably higher than the minimum prescribed the percentage of milk solids-not-fat is below the minimum prescribed. The Analyst's reports do not throw any lighten that question. In' these circumstances, it would not be safe to rely on the Analyst's reports alone to come to the conclusion that the samples in question are adulterated. It is quite possible that the Analyst's reports are erroneous or that the cow and buffalo from the udders of which the milk were drawn were not given the proper feed."

The court followed the decision Sultan Shah v. State (1973 Crl. Q. 1413) and ' acquitted the accused. The correctness of the reasoning adopted by the Magistrate is challenged in this appeal.

2. The appellant would contend that when standards are fixed under the Rules and the Public Analyst certifies that the sample sent for analysis was below the standard it was incumbent on the Court to accept the report as evidence in the case, and in the absence of rebutting materials, to act upon it. in the instant case, no materials have been placed to show that the report of the Public Analyst was wrong and hence the acquittal is not justified.

3. S.13(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act directs that a report signed by a Public Analyst unless superseded by a certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, may be used as evidence of the facts stated' therein in proceedings under the Act. No rebutting evidence has been adduced in the case to show that the facts stated in the reports viz., the percentage of milk fat and milk solids-non-fat found on analysis are erroneous. If they are not erroneous, there is no doubt that the samples sold to the Food Inspector were sub-standard in respect of milk solid-non-fat.

4. Under S.2 (i) of the Prevention of Food. Adulteration Act, an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated .

(a) if the article sold by the vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice or is not