Judgment This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondents by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tuticorin, of offences under sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. P.W. 1, the Food Inspector of Tuticorin Municipality, purchased half a pound of butter from the second accused from the shop of the first accused. He issued a voucher, Exhibit P-1 which was signed by both the accused. On examination, the butter was found to contain 25.3 per cent. moisture, whereas, according to the rules, the moisture content should not exceed 10 per cent. The Analyst also found that the sample contained 9.3 per cent. excess moisture and the fat derived from the sample contained 64 per cent. of fat not derived from milk or cream as calculated from the Reichert value. The trial Court accepted the case for the prosecution that accused 1 and 2 sold butter to P.W. 1 but acquitted the accused on the ground that the sample and not contain any other constituent part. The reasoning of the trial Court cannot be supported, and if butter which is sold does not conform to the standard prescribed under A-11.05 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, then the butter will he adulterated. But it is unnecessary to go into the question any further, for I am not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal for the reason that the sample which was taken on 24th February, 1961, was analysed only on 21st August, 1961. There is no evidence on record to prove that the butter was in a fit condition and, though it was analysed six months after the sample was taken, the results of the analysis would not have been affected. On this ground alone, the order of acquittal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. R.M.-----Appeal dismissed.