The certificate issued by the Central Food Laboratory is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, but not of any opinion expressed therein, and the courts are not bound to accept the opinion of the Director. The court emphasized the need for a proper analysis by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory and the importance of specific methods for detection of adulteration.

1. This appeal along with Criminal Revision Petion Nos 133 and 135 of 1968, was referred to us by Raghavan, J., since according to the learned Jugde "a fairly important question under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act" is involved in these cases. The appeal is against acquittal by the Additonal First Class Magistrate, Tellicherry in Calender Case No. 171 of 1966 which arose out of a complaint from the Food Inspector, Sreepandapuram Panchayat under S.16 (1) and 7 read with S.2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The case against the accused was that he was found keeping in his possession lac dhall otherwise known as Kesari dhall, for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 750 grams of the said commodity from the shop on payment of a price of 75 paise. On analysis it was reported by the Analyst

that the "sample represents one of Kesari or lac dhall" which is a totally prohibited article of food. The report of the public analyst was subsequently superseded by the certificate of analysis issued by the Central Food Laboratory which stated that the "sample represents one of Kesari or Lac dhall." The learned Magistrate holding that the data necessary to enable the Court to come to the conclusion that the article in question was Kesari dhall were lacking, has acquitted the accused.

2. The learned State Prosecutor challenging the order of acquittal, pointed out that the necessary data have been given in the certificate and that the decision of the learned Magistrate is unsustainable. The report of the Public Analyst and the certificate of the Central Food Laboratory were both placed before us for our consideration. But on a perusal of the report and the certificate, we are not satisfied that either of them has given the necessary data to enable the Court to come to its own conclusion as to whether the article in question is the prohibited variety of lac dhall and that the accused has committed the offence with which he is charged. When the article in question is sent for further analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, it is the certificate of the Central Food Laboratory that is to govern the matter because under S.13 (3) of the Act "the certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2) shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst under sub-section (1)". The word "supersede" means "to take the place of by reason of superior right; to make useless by superior power; to replace; to displace, set aside, render unnecessary". So when once the certificate of the Central Food Laboratory is received, the report of the public analyst will stand replaced or set aside. The position is made further clear by sub-section (5) of S.13 which says:

"Any document purporting to be a report signed by a public analyst unless it has been superseded under sub-section (3) or any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein. Provided that any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts sated therein."

Bat to what extent will the report stand superseded? It is nowhere stated in the Act that when the certificate is received, the report will stand eschewed in its entirety. But the certificate will prevail in respect of the facts stated therein. The facts if any contained in the report which are in addition to those considered in the certificate, those facts will not stand effaced by the superiority of the certificate and can be considered in evidence. In the present case, however, such a contigency has not arisen since the report itself is of no help. It has only given the results of a physical examination like the shape of the article (axe-shaped), starch granules are round and irregular, the palisade cells of the tests are macrosceleroids (rod-shaped) etc. These observations are of no help to the