Judgment This appeal is filed by the State of Madras against the order of acquittal of the respondent for an offence under section 5(1)(a) and (d) read with rule 36 framed under section 20(2) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, Madras Act III of 1918, as amended. The case against the accused is that accused 1 offered for sale, through his salesman, A. 2, coffee powder adulterated with wild date seeds at about 8-45 a.m. on 31st July, 1948. P.W.1 went to the shop where coffee powder was exposed for sale and got a sample of that coffee powder from second accused, who was the salesman in the shop of the first accused and sent it to the Government analyst for his opinion. It was found by the analyst that it contained 30 percent, of roasted wild date seeds powder. The prosecution examined P.W.2 who deposed that the first accused was absent at the shop and that accused 2 produced a tin, from which the sample was taken and that it did not contain any label to show that it contained an admixture of the date seed powder. The case of the accused was that the accused was in the habit of selling adulterated coffee powder after warning the public about it. In support of his case he examined D.Ws.1 and 2. The first Court acquitted the accused. In the course of his judgment the trial Magistrate stated that there was no mediatornama prepared when samples were taken and the third of the sample of coffee powder taken is not produced in the Court as required by section 15(1)(c)(iii) to show that what the Government analyst analysed was the sample of the coffee powder taken from this shop, and that according to section 19 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act of 1918 no prosecution under this Act shall be commenced three months after the commission of the offence. In the end he acquitted the accused observing “In the view of the above facts I consider that the prosecution has not satisfactorily proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused in this case sold coffee powder which was adulterated with the roasted wild date seeds and I give the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquit them under section 245(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.” I think the order of acquittal cannot stand. The learned Magistrate seems to have been under a misapprehension that a mediatornama was absolutely necessary to evidence the taking of a sample of powder by P.W.1 from the shop of the accused. It is not necessary to prepare a mediatornama in cases of this nature. Secondly all that the section 15(2) requires is that “if he (person from whom the sample has been taken) declines to accept one of the parts, the public analyst receiving the sample for analysis shall divide it into two parts and shall seal or fasten up one of those parts and shall cause it, either upon receipt of the sample or when he delivers his certificate, to be delivered to the local Executive Officer who shall retain it for production in case proceedings are taken.” The section does not make it obligatory on the Executive Officer, who is the Sanitary Inspector in this case, to produce that part which he has got with him into Court irrespective of the fact whether it is required or not. It must be remembered in this case that P.W.2 had stated that the coffee powder which was sent to the analyst was taken from the shop of the accused and this testimony was not challenged in cross-examination; nor was he called upon to produce that part of the coffee powder which was then with him. In these circumstances, it was not necessary for the Executive Officer to produce that portion of the coffee powder that was retained with him. As regards the contention that the prosecution was not launched within 3 months of the commission of the offence, I must observe that there is no force in it. It must be observed that the charge sheet was filed on 15th September, 1948, within three months of the commission of the offence which was on 31st July, 1948. In these circumstances, the order of acquittal of the Magistrate is absolutely wrong and ought to be set aside. It is not necessary to send back to the trial Court for a retrial. The whole evidence was placed before me and I am satisfied that the accused must be convicted under section 5(1)(a) and (d) read with rule 26 framed under rule 20(2) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act. I accordingly convict and sentence the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 10. K.C. ----- Appeal allowed.