( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the Municipal Board, Kanpur, against the order of the Additional City magistrate, Kanpur, acquitting the respondent of the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (VII of 1954), hereinafter called the Act.

( 2 ) BADLOO respondent was found selling milk on 24-9-1957. When asked by the food inspector he informed that he was selling mixed milk oil cow and buffalo. Thereupon the food inspector purchased some milk for the purpose of taking a sample thereof. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The Public Analyst reported that the sample contained 4. 8 per cent fat and 7. 4 per cent non-fatty solids. In his opinion the sample contained about 15 per cent added water and was adulterated. He has clearly stated in his report that the sample was analysed on the basis of the standards for mixed milk (cow and buffalo ).

( 3 ) THE Oral evidence is of little importance. The Municipal; Board tried to secure the conviction of the respondent on the report of the Public --Analyst. The report, according to the learned magistrate, did not prove the respondents guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Notwithstanding the strenuous arguments of learned counsel for the Municipal Board I have also arrived at the same conclusion,

( 4 ) SECTION 16 (1) (a) of the Act prescribes punishment where any person sells any article of food in contravention of any provision of the Act or the rules made thereunder. Section 7 prohibits the sale, inter alia, (i) of any adulterated food and (ii) of any article of food in contravention of any provision of the Act or the rules made thereunder. Section 2 (i) defines adulterated food. The defini-tion clause contains several sub-clauses, but Sub-clause (i) alone is piertinent to the case. According to Sub-clause (1) an article of food is adulterated, if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities which are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability. Section 2 (xii) declares that prescribed means, prescribed by rules made under the Act. Section 23 (1) empowers the Central Government to make rules, and by Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (1)thereof the Central Government is enabled to frame rules defining standards of quality for, and fixing the limits of elemental variability permissible in respect of, any article of food. By sub-clause (m) of the same sub-section the Centra] Government is empowered tq make rules for prohibiting or regulating (i) addition of any water tq any article of food and (ii) the sale of any article of food to which such addition has been made. The Central Government has framed rules which are called the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Rule 5 lays down that standards of quality of various articles of food specified in appendix B to the Rules would be as defined in that appendix. Appendix B prescribes among others the standards of quality for cow milk and buffalo milk. The cow milk in Uttar Pradesh shall contain not less than 3. 5 per cent fat and not less than 8. 5 per cent non-fatty solids. The buffalo milk shall contain not less than 6 per cent fat and not less than 9 per cent non-fatty solids, Rule 44 provides that no person shall sell inter alia milk which contains any added water. Sections 8, 11 (3) and 13 (1) of the Act deal with the appointment and duties of the Public Analyst, Sub-section (5) of Section 13 provides that any document purporting to be a report signed by a Public Analyst may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceedings under the Act.

( 5 ) FROM the above summary of the pertinent provisions of the Act and the Rules it would appear that there are no statutory standards of quality or statutory limits of componental variability for mixed milk of cow and buffalo. The public Analyst has first found the mean between the prescribed standards of cow milk and buf