The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of legal provisions related to the prevention of food adulteration, including the quantity of sample required for analysis, the use of preservatives, and the examination of the Public Analyst.

1. This appeal is against the acquittal of the respondents in a case in which they were prosecuted for an offence under S.16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act 37 of 1954).

2. The prosecution case briefly was that the second accused, a hotel in Calicut, of which the first accused was the cashier and the 3rd accused was the managing director, used to sell ice-cream. On 16 41970 pw.1, the Food Inspector of Calicut Corporation, went into the hotel and purchased ice-cream for the purpose of analysis. Nine cups of ice-cream are stated to have been purchased, the formalities complied with, the ice-cream purchased sampled into three according to procedure, one sample given to the accused, one sample sent to the court, and the third sent to the Analyst for the purpose of analysis. The Public Analyst found that the sample contained ice-cream which was adulterated Hence on the basis of Ext. P-3 report of the Food Inspector, prosecution was sanctioned by the Health Officer of the Corporation.

3. On the side of the prosecution three witnesses were examined. pw.1, as has already been referred to, is the Food Inspector himself. pws. 2 and 3 are two assistants of pw.1. No independent witnesses were examined. The acquittal of the accused was based mainly on three grounds; (1) there was no reliable evidence with respect to the quantum of ice cream taken for the purpose of analysis, (2) there was no evidence as to whether formalin had been added, and even assuming that it was added, there is hardly any evidence as to the proportion in which, formalin was used in relation to the quantum of the sample taken, and (3) the prosecution did not conform to the requirements of item A.11.02.08 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which fixes the standard for ice-cream.

4. Sri K.P.G. Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the order of acquittal cannot be sustained on any one of the grounds stated by the learned District Magistrate. As for the first ground, namely, the quantity of ice-cream taken for analysis, Ext. P-2 cash bill shows that approximately 900 grammes of ice- cream valued at Rs.9.27 were purchased by Pw.1. Ext.P-3. the Food Inspector's intimation, shows that nine cups of ice-cream for Rs. 9.27 weighing 900 grammes were taken for analysis. Apart from this, though the quantity of ice-cream taken for analysis is not specifically mentioned during the course of chief-examination or cross-examination of Pw.1, in re-examination he has stated "I took samples as per rules and quantity as prescribed by rules.900 gms. is the required quantity. I bottled in 3 bottles each containing 300 grammes". In cross-examination the witness stated, "Bottle was full up to the neck." Further by virtue of the provisions in S.114(e) of the Evidence Act, pw 1 should be presumed to have performed the official act of taking sample for analysis regularly in compliance with the rules prescribed in that behalf.

5. Even assuming that there is no acceptable evidence as to the exact quantity of the foods tuff taken for analysis, if it has been possible for the analyst to carry out a proper analysis and arrive at his conclusion without any handicap, the quantity of ice-cream taken as sample may not be much material. Under the various items of food enumerated in R.22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, item 22 is ice-cream, and the approximate quantity to be supplied for the sample is stated to be 300 grammes. It appears that the legis-lature has used the word "approximately" guardedly, so that nice question of exactitude may cot create any difficulty in regard to the implementation of the relevant provisions of the Act. As has been held in Food Inspector, Quilon v. Koyakutty (1972 KLT 464)

"Though R.22 uses the word 'shall', the specific mention of an approximate quantity therein minimises the mandatory force of the expression; the provision is only a means for securing the