Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused in a Food Adulteration Case. The complainant is the Food Inspector of the Tellicherry Municipality and the accused is the Tellicherry Co-operative Milk Society represented by accused 1 to 3 the President, Secretary and Supervisor of the Society. The accused Society is in charge of the milk supply to the Tellicherry Government Hospital. On 30 51960 while accused 3 was delivering milk as usual at the hospital, the complainant purchased 24 ounces of milk from him for purposes of analysis. The Public Analyst to whom the sample of milk was sent reported that it was adulterated as it was found to contain 7% of added water. The accused were thereupon charged under S.7 & 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated milk. 2. The learned District Magistrate, Tellicherry who tried the case acquitted all the accused. The order of acquittal was based on the grounds that statutory notice of the sampling was not given to the first accused and the notice given to accused 2 was belated, that there were serious defects is . the process of packing and transmitting the sample for analysis and that the inordinate delay of about three months in getting the sample analysed. rendered it unsafe to place any reliance on the result of the analysis. It is, not necessary to canvass the correctness of these findings as the main grounds on which the order of acquittal was sought to be supported by the learned counsel for the respondents are (i) that the conviction of accused 1 and 2 could not in no way be sustained because they have proved that the offence was committed without their knowledge and that they had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence; and (ii) that the Analyst's report could not be acted upon because of the failure to add formalin to the sample in the prescribed proportion, namely, two drops per ounce of milk. 3. As mentioned earlier the first accused is the President and the second accused is the Secretary of the Society. Both of them are honorary workers. The second accused as dw.1 has given evidence as to the working of the Society and the method of collection and distribution of milk. There are three collecting centres for milk. 3. As mentioned earlier the first accused is the President and the second accused is the Secretary of the Society. Both of them are honorary workers. The second accused as dw.1 has given evidence as to the working of the Society and the method of collection and distribution of milk. There are three collecting centres for milk. There the cows are 'milked under the supervision of the depot manager and before they are filled into the can a lactometer reading is taken and then the milk is poured into the cans and sealed. After the milk is collected and sealed by the depot supervisors and distributors both of them have to sign warrantees like Exts. D-3 and D-3 (a) regarding the purity of the milk and send it on to the office. When the sealed can is taken to the hospital the same is opened in the presence of another supervisor of the Society. The supervisor then signs a similar warrantee in regard to the milk supplied at the hospital also. Lactometers are supplied by the Society to the employees at the various centres. Under the bye-laws the office manager is enjoined to carry out the overall supervision of the day-to-day working of the society and except for the surprise inspection that is carried out by the Secretary there is no rule or bye-law which enjoins the Secretary or President to carry out regular inspection of the collection and distribution of the milk. Ext. D-4 the minutes book of the Society shows that on 16 111955 it was resolved to introduce subsidiary bye-laws to the effect that the responsibility of supplying adulterated milk to the public and the customers was on the depot keepers, supervisors and distributors and a copy of that resolution was communicated to the concerned employees. The correctness of the evidence of dw.1 on these matters is not challenged. Thus the evidence of dw.1 has established that the adulteration was made without the knowledge of accused 1 and 2 and also that they had exercised all due diligence to prevent adulteration of the milk. The acquittal of accused 1 & 2 has therefore only to be confirmed. 4. Thus the evidence of dw.1 has established that the adulteration was made without the knowledge of accused 1 and 2 and also that they had exercised all due diligence to prevent adulteration of the milk. The acquittal of accused 1 & 2 has therefore only to be confirmed. 4. As for the second objection R.20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 prescribes that: "The preservative used in the case of samples of any milk (including skimmed and separated milk.), cream and gur in liquid or semi-liquid form 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 per one ounce of the sample." Now pw.1 admits that he added formalin to the sample in the proportion of one drop for one ounce of milk. The defence contention is that the inadequacy of the preservative in the sample makes the analysis ineffective especially in view of the delay of three months in conducting the analysis, the samples having been taken on 30 51960 and the report of the analyst is dated 24 81960.On the other hand the learned Prosecutor contends that though the certificate was issued only on 24 81960 the analysis must have been done much earlier and even otherwise the proportion of formalin used viz., one drop to an ounce of milk is more than sufficient to preserve the milk for a period of three months. In support of the above contention the learned Prosecutor cited the opinion of Woodman in his book on Food Analysis that formaldehyde when employed in milk in the proportion of 1 in 10,000 parts to 1 in 50,000 parts will suffice to preserve the milk from 24 hours to several days and larger quantities such as 1 part in 3,000 will preserve the milk for months and the following observations from Public Health Laboratory Practice by A. D. Steward and T. Orawford Boyd. Dealing with formaldehyde as a preservative for milk the learned authors observe (Page 117) "Formaldehyde is usually met with as a 40 per cent solution known as formalin It is an efficient preservative. Two or three drops added to a pint of milk (a strength of 1 to 50,000) will preserve milk for three to four days. Dealing with formaldehyde as a preservative for milk the learned authors observe (Page 117) "Formaldehyde is usually met with as a 40 per cent solution known as formalin It is an efficient preservative. Two or three drops added to a pint of milk (a strength of 1 to 50,000) will preserve milk for three to four days. Larger quantities for instance 1 in 3,000 would preserve milk for months...." The learned Prosecutor attempted to establish by calculation that if 3,000 drops of milk can be preserved for months by one drop of formaldehyde one ounce of milk can be preserved for 'months' by adding two-fifth of a drop of formalin. Though the calculation appears to be correct I do not think it can be taken as proved that the amount of preservative added in this case had indeed preserved the sample in tact till it was analysed. In the opinions cited above, the word 'months' is used as opposed to the word 'days'. What is stated there is that a certain amount of formaldehyde will preserve milk for three or four days and a larger amount will preserve milk for months. Quite probably the term'months' will cover a period of three months. However I do not think that such a loosely worded statement is sufficient basis for reversal of an order of acquittal. The rules are framed by a committee of highly qualified experts who found it necessary to amend the original rule by increasing the proportion of one drop of formalin for an ounce of milk to two drops. When the analyst thought it fit to disregard the rule the least that the complainant could have done was to examine the analyst to establish that the amount of preservative used was sufficient for the purpose and that the sample had not deteriorated by the time it was analysed. In this connection it may be noted that pw.1 stated that the formalin he used was from the same stock which he used in a previous case where he admitted that it was only a 10% solution. However he went on to explain that on later verification he found that the formalin was not a 10% solution but on the prescribed strength of 40%. However he went on to explain that on later verification he found that the formalin was not a 10% solution but on the prescribed strength of 40%. Whatever that may be I do not think it can be held in this case that the failure to follow the prescribed process has caused no prejudice to the accused. 5. In the result the order of acquittal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Dismissed.