JUDGMENT T. Rambhadran, J. - This is an appeal by the Municipal Board Jaunpur against the appellate decision of the learned Temporary Sessions Judge of Jaunpur, whereby he set aside the conviction of the respondent of an offence under section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 7 thereof and acquitted him. 2. Proceedings against the respondent were- started on the basis of a complaint instituted by Dr. A.K. Roy, Medical Officer of Health-cum-Food Inspector, Municipal Board, Jaunpur, wherein it was stated that on 17-4-58, a sample of as a fetid was purchased by him from the shop of the respondent. The same was divided into parts, one part being handed ever to the respondent, another was kept by the Medical Officer, while the third was sent to the Public Analyst to the U.P. Government for analysis. On 8-7-1958, the said analyst reported that the sample of afore stated was adulterated in as much as its total ash comment was 36.10 per tent as against the maximum of 15 per cent permissible under the rules. It was on this basis that the respondent was summoned to court and the trial started. The respondent applied to the trial Magistrate under section 13(2) of the Act that this part of the sample be sent to the Director Central hood Laboratory for a certificate. This was done. The report of the said Director dated 17-9-1958 shows that although the total ash content was only 4.5 per cent i.e. far less than the prescribed maximum of 15 per cent, nevertheless the sample was adulterated for a different reason, i.e. the alcoholic content was only 5.7 per cent as against the minimum of 25 per cent required. The trial court convicted the respondent on the basis of the above certificate granted by the Director, holding that his report was final and it had the effect of superseding the report of the Public Analyst. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge in acquitting the respondent, felt that in as much as the director had been invited to give has opinion only as to the quantum of the ash content, the respondent could rot have been convicted on the basis of a totally different finding that the alcoholic extract did not satisfy the statutory minimum. 3. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge in acquitting the respondent, felt that in as much as the director had been invited to give has opinion only as to the quantum of the ash content, the respondent could rot have been convicted on the basis of a totally different finding that the alcoholic extract did not satisfy the statutory minimum. 3. in this appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the view taken by the Sessions Judge was not correct, and the Director was not debarred from expressing his opinion on all points, which could demonstrate that the sample sent to him was adulterated, i.e. in addition to the point or points specifically referred to him. We are inclined to agree on this submission. 4. In our opinion however the order of acquittal of the respondent is justified on the short ground that in the complaint, on the basis of which proceedings were initiated against the respondent the only ground taken was the report of the Public Analyst with regard to the ash content. We may point out that under the proviso to section 20 of the Act, the Medical Officer of Health had to attach a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to his complaint. This was the basis on which the Magistrate took cognizance of the case against the respondent. Further this was the case which the respondent was called upon by the Magistrate to meet. This ground however failed in view of the Directors report. Bearing in mind that liability eventually was sought to be fastened on the respondent on an entirely different ground not mentioned in the complaint, we feel that the conviction of the respondent on the ground, that the alcoholic contents was not up to the minimum prescribed could not have been sustained. In the asserted, we may point out that section 20 contemplates that the precise ground on which prosecution is launched should be stated clearly in the complaint, and since the ground mentioned in the present complaint was negatived by the report of the Director, the bottom was knocked out of the prosecution case, as stated in the complaint. 5. In the view that we hare taken, we find no force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.