BHASKARAN, J. :- The two appeals against acquittal are by the State : and the revision against conviction and sentence is by the accused. They were heard together, and are being disposed of by this common judgment, for, in all the three cases, the prosecution as were for infringement of the provisions of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act 37 of 1954). Hereinafter referred to as the Act, and they involve the consideration of the common question relating to the particulars to be mentioned in the report submitted by the Public Analyst under Section 13 of the Act, high-lighted before us. Points peculiar to Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 1972 and cri. Appeal No. 149 of 1973 urged before us will be considered towards the end of the judgment after dealing with the main (common) question relating to the Analyst's report.

2. Let us now turn to the brief facts relevant for our purpose in each case :

Crl. A. No. 58 of 1972 : This appeal is against the acquittal of the accused in C.C. No. 42 of 1970 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court, Hosdrug. The case arose on a complaint filed by P.W. 1, the Food Inspector, Cheruvathur Panchayat, alleging that the accused had stocked adulterated 'toor dhall' for sale to the public for human consumption at his grocery shop at Payyangiyil within the jurisdiction of Cheruvathur Panchayat, and had also sold a portion thereof to him for the purpose of analysis. The material portion of Ext. P. 3, report by the Public Analyst, reads as follows :

"I further certify that I have caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample, and declare the result of the analysis to be as follows :

1. Microscopic examination : The sample consists of toor dhal (Cajanes Sajan)

2. Metanil yellow and an orange coal-tar dye. Present. (Non-permitted coaltar dyes).

and am of the opinion that the said sample contains coal-tar dyes and is therefore adulterated."

The charge framed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate as under Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Act. On completion of the trial the accused was acquitted under Section 258(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (1898), hereinafter referred to as the Code, which Code was applicable to the proceeding, the court finding him not guilty of the offences with which he was charged, holding :

"......... This certificate does not contain the result of the analysis, viz., the data from which it can be ascertained that the sample sent to the Public Analyst contained coal-tar dyes ..........."

In coming to this conclusion reliance was placed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on certain observations contained in a Division Bench ruling of this Court in State of kerala v. Narayanan Nair, 1969 Ker LT 645 to which one of us was a party, and on the decision of Sadasivan. J., in Criminal Appeals Nos. 51, 52 and 53 of (1971) (Ker), which we are told, has not so far been reported. The order of reference to a Full Bench by the Division Bench consisting of Raghavan C.J. and Khalid, J. before whom the matter came up for consideration earlier on a reference by one of us, reads as follows :-

"Whether the Supreme Court decision in Dhian Singh's case AIR 1970 SC 318 = (1970 Cri LJ 492) and the decision of our Court in In re Abdul Azeez, 1963 Ker LT 698 = (1964 (1) Cri LJ 403 = AIR 1964 Ker 107) say exactly the same thing is doubtful; and whether the later decision of our Court in Narayanan Nair's case 1969 Ker Lt 645 requires reconsideration is still more doubtful. Therefore, we consider this to be an important case requiring consideration by a Full Bench."

Cri A. No. 330 of 1972 : This appeal arises out of the acquittal of the accused in C.C. No. 211 of 1971 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Neyyattinkara. The complaint in this case was preferred against the accused by the Food Inspector. Amaravila (Neyyattinkara Circle) for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Act alleging that the accused had sold