( 1 ) THIS appeal, as also Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 1965, which too has been filed by the Municipal Council, Raipur, against the same respondent, both arise out of a common judgment of acquittal of the respondent, delivered by the learned sessions Judge, Raipur, in two different appeals, viz. Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 1964 and No. 148 of 1964, arising out of Criminal case No. 338 of 1963 and No. 344 of 1963 respectively, and as common questions of law are involved in both of them, they were heard together and this judgment shall govern the disposal of the other appeal also.

( 2 ) THE Municipal Council, Raipur, has filed these appeals under Section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal of the respondent, dated 5-12-65, in the aforesaid two appeals which arose from criminal Cases Nos. 338/63 and 344/63, and in each of those cases, the respondent was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act), and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

( 3 ) THE facts of the prosecution case are identical in both the cases, excepting that the article seized in one case was wheat flour and in the other, gram-flour (Besan ). Food Inspector, Shri Khimji Bhiwanday (P. W. 1) had, on 28-11-62, took sample of Besan (gram-flour) as well as wheat-flour, on payment of price therefor, for purposes of analysis, from respondent Bishandas, after due notice to him, and divided the sample of each in three equal parts, which were sealed in the presence of the witnesses, and one packet of each of the two articles was sent to the Public analyst for test, vide his report, Ex. P-5, and in both cases, each of the two items were found below the standard specification.

( 4 ) AT the trial, the accused had pleaded not guilty to the charge against him under section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act in each case, and his defence in both was that he did not adulterate the stuff, but he had sold the same from what he had purchased from the common market. The learned Magistrate, as aforesaid, found gram-flour and the wheat-flour both to be below the specified standard, vide the reports of the Public Analyst, Ex. P-5, and hence he convicted and sentenced the respondent in each case as aforesaid. Being aggrieved, the respondent went in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, who held a different view, and passed the impugned orders of acquittal in the two appeals, and hence these appeals before this court.

( 5 ) THE learned Judge based his order of acquittal on two grounds, firstly that the food Laboratory referred to in the order of appointment of Shri S. N. Dutta (vide notification No. 3695/2879/xvii-PH-IV dated 22-6-1960) is not proved to be the same Laboratory which has been referred to in the State Government notification no. 2683/3282/xvii-M-IV dated 27-12-1960 (hereinafter referred to as notification dated 27-12-60), and secondly, Shri Dutta was appointed only as a chemist, while the notification dated 27-12-60, purported to (Sic) the Medical officer and the Chemist in the Public Health Laboratory, Raipur, being appointed as Public Analyst under the Act, and as Shri Dutta did not hold both the above said offices, he was in the opinion of the learned Judge, not competent to act as a public Analyst.

( 6 ) SHRI Jakatdar, the learned counsel for the appellant in both appeals, has urged before us, that the learned Sessions Judge had erred on both the grounds in acquitting the accused. He invited our attention to the notification No. 7010/ 2717/xvii-M dated 4-11-1959 (hereinafter referred to as Notfn. dated 4-111959), whereby the existing laboratories at Gwalior and Raipur etc. were raised to the status of the Regional Laboratories in order to bring them in conformity with the status as approved by the Central Government for such a laboratory and the food Laboratory being