TRIVEDI, J. :- This appeal has been filed by the Nagar Mahapalika Lucknow and is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow dated 8th July, 1969, allowing an appeal and setting aside the conviction and sentence which was passed against Ram Dhani respondent under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Ram Dhani was put on trial for offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the prosecution case being that on 21-8-1965, S.N. Ojha. Food Inspector, found Ram Dhani carrying milk. He purchased sample of milk from him after payment of price on 21-8-1965. The sample was in due course sent to the Public Analyst, Agra. Sri R. S. Srivastava, who submitted his report on 21-9-1965 to the effect that the sample was adulterated. The accused Ram Dhani respondent did not plead guilt to the charge framed against him. The trying Magistrate found the charge proved and Ram Dhani guilty of commission of an offence punishable under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-; whereupon Ram Dhani appealed and challenged validity of the order of conviction and sentence on the ground, amongst others, that the Food Inspector, who claimed to have taken the sample and the Public Analyst, who submitted the report, and, which formed the basis of conviction, were appointed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and not under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as amended by Act 49 of 1964 with the result that upon amendment of the Act by the said Act of 1964, they became functus officio and had no power to discharge any functions under the said Act. This submission found favour with the Additional Sessions Judge who allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of Ram Dhani. It is in these circumstances that the Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow comes to this Court.

2. Only one submission was made by the learned counsel for the appellant before us. It was urged that the Additional Sessions Judge was in error in applying the case of Prabhu Dayal v. The State, 1968 All WR 207 to the present case. There is much force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The case of Prabhu Dayal v. The State was based on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Municipal Board, Kanpur v. Behari Lal, 1960 All WR 229 : (AIR 1960 All 546) (FB). The case of Municipal Board, Kanpur, appears to be clearly distinguishable. In that case the appointment of Dr. A. C. Chatterjee as Public Analyst had been made under the U. P. Pure Food Act. 1950, in September, 1953, and, therefore, the argument was that he could not be treated as a Public Analyst under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, he not having been appointed a Public Analyst under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. This argument was accepted by the Full Bench on the ground that the Pure Food Act, 1950 was repealed by Section 25 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and, therefore it was held that the repeal of the U. P. Pure Food Act had the necessary consequence of terminating the appointment of Public Analyst appointed under that Act having regard to the totality of provisions contained in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In the present case, the Food Inspector and the Public Analyst were appointed under a notification dated 27-7-1959

issued under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The provision relating to appointment of a Public Analyst is contained in Section 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. By Act 49 of 1964 Section 8 was amended only to this extent that the Central Government was given concurrent powers with the State Government in the matter of appointment of a Public Analyst through notification; Act 49 of 1964 did not repeal any part of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 whi