Order.- The petitioner was charged with an offence under rules 27 (1), 29(1) and 29 (a) of the rules framed under section 20 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act (III of 1918) and was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. The case against him was that, on the 29th July, 1953, he was found in possession of milk containing 25 per cent, of added water and thereby committed the offence with which he had been charged. The case for the prosecution is that, the Sanitary Inspector purchased some milk from the petitioner to find out if water was added to it and, on being tested, the milk was found to be adulterated. The complalnt was filed on 10th February, 1954, although the alleged offence was committed on the 29th July, 1953. One of the defences to the prosecution was limitation based on section 19 of the Prevention of Adulteration Act. The trial Court convicted the petitioner without considering the question of limitation. "The lower appellate Court, while finding that the prosecution was clearly barred by reason of section 19 of Act III of 1918 which prescribes a period of three months after the commission of an offence for starting prosecution, remanded the case in order to enable the prosecution to file a despatch book of the Panchayat Board, Kalahasti, as though that was going to decide the matter. I am unable to see what bearing the despatch book will have on the point of limitation. Having found that the prosecution was barred under section 19 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, the only logical course open to it was to have acquitted the petitioner instead of remanding the case. The order of the lower appellate Court is therefore unsustainable and ought to be set aside. The petition is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted. The fine, if paid, will be refunded. D.L.N. ----- Petition allowed.