This appeal is against the acquittal of the respondent by the Second Presidency Magistrate, Georgetown.

On 18th March, 1963, at 7-10 A.M., P.W.1, Elumalai, the Food Inspector attached to the Corporation of Madras, purchased three ollocks of milk from the respondent near the Beach Railway Station. A third part of this milk, sent to the Public Analyst, properly sealed and secured, was found, on analysts to have been adulterated with 44 per cent of added water, as it contained only 3.1 per cent as against 3.5 per cent of the required milk fat and had only 4 8 per cent milk solids other than milk fat as against the required quantum of 8 5 per cent. The milk was in fact a mixture of cows’ and buffaloes’ milk. The Analyst based the aforeSopinSno^SmsA-11.01.01 and A-11.01.02-in Appendix-B to the Prevention S Food Adulteration Rules which prescribed that cows’ milk and buffaloes milk Shall contain at least 8.5 per cent and 9.0 per cent of milk solids other than milk fat. When prosecuted for an offence punishable under sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the plea of the respondent was that he did not voluntarily sell the sample of the milk to P.W.1, the F