( 1 ) THIS case comes before us on a reference made by Golwalkar and Bhave, JJ. , for examining the correctness of the view taken by Newasker and Sen, JJ. in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shankerlal, Cri. Appeal No. 180 of 1966, D/- 25-8-1966 (MP), which was decided along with State of Madhya Pradesh v. Abbasbhai, 1967 mp LJ 872= (1967 Cri LJ 1723 ). The same question is raised in Ataul Haque v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Cri. Revn. No. 431 of 1966 (MP)), and Kundanlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Cri. Revn. No. 591 of 1966 (MP)), and, therefore, these two cases also are before us for the same purpose.

( 2 ) IN the first case, the respondent Chhotekhan was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated milk and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or, in default, to like imprisonment for a further term of six months. In appeal, the Sessions Judge acquitted Chhotekhan on the ground that there was no specific evidence to show which preservative had been added to the sample of milk sent to the Public Analyst and what was the quantity so added and, therefore, his report was of no value. In taking that view, the Sessions Judge relied upon Dattappa v. Buldana Municipality, AIR 1951 Nag 191. Against that acquittal, the State filed this appeal, which came up for hearing before Golwalkar and Bhave JJ. They regarded Dattappa's case, AIR 1951 Nag 191, decided by mudhol-ker J. (as he then was) as overruled by The State v. Sonabai AIR 1952 nag 83, and Municipal Council, Multai v. Juggan, Cri. Appeal No. 495 of 1964, D/3-10-1966 (MP ). It was, however, argued that there was no specific evidence to show that a specimen of the seal had been sent separately as required by Rule 18 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, or that the Public Analyst had compared the seal on the container with the one separately sent to him as required by Rule 7 of those Rules and, therefore, the report of the Public Analyst was not admissible in evidence. For this view, reliance was placed upon shankerlal's case, Cri. Appeal No. 180 of 1966, D/- 25-8-1966 (MP), mentioned in the opening paragraph. Golwalkar and Bhave JJ. doubted the correctness of the view taken in that case and made this reference.

( 3 ) IN the second case, Ataul Haque was convicted under Section 7 read with section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act for selling adulterated milk and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or, in default, to a further term of like imprisonment for four months. He has challenged his conviction inter alia on the ground that no evidence was led to show that the provisions of Rules 7 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, were complied with. In the third case too, Kundenlal was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act for selling adulterated ghee and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or, in default, to like imprisonment for three months. He too has raised the point that rules 7 and 18 ibid were not complied with.

( 4 ) IN Shankerlal's case, Cri. Appeal No. 180 of 1966, D/- 25-8-1966 (MP), the division Bench relied upon State of Gujarat v. Shantaben, AIR 1964 Guj 136, and observed:

"it cannot be doubted that the report of the Public Analyst is admissible only under certain circumstances. It is admissible under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provided certain formalities are observed. If the formalities are not observed, the reports cannot be made admissible. That shows that the rules are mandatory. If the rules are mandatory, there cannot be a presumption that official acts have been properly performed. The fixing of the seal is no doubt an official act, sending the sample of the seal also is an official act, but the admis-sibility of the document depends on the performance of the official acts which shoul