The court emphasized the need for the court to decide whether a sample is adulterated, taking into account marginal errors in analysis and giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.

1. This appeal is by the complainant against acquittal. The accused were prosecuted by the complainant (Food Inspector, Kottayam Municipality) under S.16(1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (shortly stated the Act) for selling adulterated cow's milk. 700 milli-litres of milk offered for sale by the accused's co-operative society was purchased by the complainant at 7-20 a.m. on 3-2-70 on payment of a price of 84 paise. It was then divided into three parts as required by the Rules and 16 drops of formalin were poured into each part and bottled. On analysis by the Public Analyst it was found that the milk contained 18% of added water. Milk fat found was 3.5% and milk solids-not-fat 6.9%. On further analysis by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, the result obtained was milk fat 5.0%, and milk solids-not-fat 8.2%. The Public Analyst as well as the Director of Central Food Laboratory have opined that the sample is adulterated. According to the Public Analyst the sample is adulterated, because it does not conform to the standard prescribed for cow's milk under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (shortly stated the Rules). The analyst is further of the opinion that the sample contained 18.0% of added water. The Director of Central Food Laboratory, on the other hand, has simply stated that the sample is "adulterated. He has not given any particular reason for his conclusion. According to the lower court, "the deterioration in quality may have been due to the fact that the analysis is after a period of 4 months". It is on this reasoning that the learned District Magistrate has acquitted the accused.

2. But in my view, without going into the question whether the variation found in the quality of the milk is due to the delay in analysing the sample or not the acquittal can be supported on another, more sobre ground. Both the report of the Public Analyst and the certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory can supply only the data relating to the analysis. The question whether the sample is adulterated has to be decided by the court on the data so supplied and in doing so, the data supplied by the Central Food Laboratory will have to be given precedence in accordance with S.13 (3) of the Act. The court in forming its conclusion on the matter can even look into other evidence made available before court. On this point the Supreme Court in Ram Dayal v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi (AIR. 1970 S. C. 366) has observed:

"Where certificates are not made final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, it will be open to the party against whom certificates which are declared to be sufficient evidence, either to rebut the facts stated therein by his own or other evidence or to require the expert to be produced for cross-examination which prayer the court is bound to consider on merits in granting or rejecting it. There is no presumption that the contents are true or correct though such certificate is evidence without formal proof. In any case where there is evidence to the contra the court is bound to consider that evidence along with such a certificate with or without the evidence of the expert who gave it being called and come to its own conclusion-"

The point, therefore, to be remembered is that it is for the court to decide whether the sample is adulterated or not. The Public Analyst and the Director of the Central Food Laboratory can only report the facts noticed by them at the analysis, and in the process of the analysis prudence dictates that border-line variations have to be ignored. This principle is seen followed by the Supreme Court in The Malwa Co-operative Milk Union Limited v. Bihari Lal (Criminal Appeal Nos. 235 and 236/64 decided by the Supreme court on the 14th of August, 1967 unreported). In that case, Hidayatullah, J., as he then was, observed:

It is not clear whether the analyst was able to isolate the fat content so successfully as not to have left room for