P.D. Sharma, J.
1. Nandu Ram aged 40 years, resident of village Umedgarh, district Rohtak, was convicted by the trial Court Under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. His appeal in the Court of Sessions succeeded in partj while the conviction stood, the sentence was reduced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. He has come up in revision against this order. The allegations against him were that he on 13th July, 1960, was seen carrying in a can twenty seers of mixed cow and buffalo milk, that Raj Pal Singh, District Food Inspector, purchased 24 ounces of milk out of it for 37 N.P., and that he after adding eight drops of formalin as a preservative1, sealed it in three clean bottles in equal quantity. The Public Analyst to whom one of the above milk bottles was sent for examination opined that it was adulterated wit 10 per cwt added water.
2. The learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner urged that proper quantity of preservative was not added to the milk obtained by the Food inspector as sample and could not be a safe guidance for the: Court to determine whether the milk was adulterated or. not, In this connection he relied upon Rule 20 of 'Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules' which provides that the preservative used in the case of samples of any milk shall be the liquid commonly known as 'formalin', that is to say, a liquid containing about 40 per cent, of formaldehyde in aqueous solution in the proportion of two drops for one ounce of the sample. The findings of the two Courts below stand vitiated since the Food Inspector failed to comply with a mandatory provision in law as embodied in Rule 20. There is no independent evidence on the record to show the condition in which the milk was when the sample was received and tested by the Public Analyst. The learned Sessions Judge while dealing with this point in his judgment referred to the statement of Public Analyst in Court which nowhere is to be found on the record. It is, therefore, not possible for this Court to hold, as he did, that the quantity of formalin added to the sample of milk in question though considerably below the strength prescribeed by Rule 20, was all the same adequate to prevent its disintegration or changes in composition.
3. The report of the Public Analyst is defective in another important aspect also and indeed cannot be considered as good evidence to prove that the sample milk was adulterated. It does not give the actual percentage of water in the sample but simply mentions that the same is adulterated with 10 per cent, added water. In similar circumstances the certificate of Public Analyst was not given any weight in the case, Municipal Board, Kanpur v. Badloo : AIR1960All504 . The learned Judge observed-.
The report of the Public Analyst did not state what was the actual percentage of water in the sample and unless that was specified it was not possible for the Court to test the accuracy of his opinion since standards vary for various reasons. It is the Court not the Public Analyst who is the ultimate: Judge of the question. The report must therefore be Ignored altogether.
4. I am in respectful agreement with this view. The prosecution thus failed to prove that the petitioner sold the sample milk in contravention of the Act or any rule promulgated thereunder.
5. For the above reasons, the revision petition is accepted and the order of the learned Sessions Judge convicting the accused Under Section 16(1)(a) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing, him to three months1 rigorous imprisonment is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.