Order The revision petitioners have been convicted under sections, 7 and 16 (1) read with sections 2(1) (a)and (l) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and rule 44-b of the Rules framed there under., and sentenced respectively to fines of Rs. 50 and Rs. 150. The short point raised by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is that in view of the considerable delay that has occurred in analysis of the sample, of milk seized in the case, no inference could be safely drawn based upon the report of the Analyst, that the milk was adulterated with 10 per cent of water. The simple question is whether the considerable delay 6n the facts of the present case, might not have led to such disintegration or alteration in the composition of the sample seized as to render it unsafe to accept the finding of the Analyst that the milk had been adultereated with 10 percent of water. It is clear from one of the text-books to which my attention has been drawn that milk, unadulterated and taken straight from the cow, contains over 80 per cent of water, nearly 4 per cent of butter fat, and certain other solids not constituting fat. In the present case, the facts are that the sample was received towards the end of March, 1961, in the Institute of Analysis at Guindy (Madras) and the report is dated 9th November, 1961; there is thus an intervening period of about eight months, and since the actual date of analysis is not given in the report, we cannot at all be certain that the milk had not disintegrated or suffered alteration in the nature of its composition. In Public Prosecutor v. Thankayya Nadar1 Kailasam, J., had occasion to consider similar facts, with regard to an alleged adulteration of milk in respect of which there had been an acquittal. The learned Judge pointed out in the Context of rule 19 and rule 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, that a preservative had to be added to the sample and that in the case of milk, it must be the liquid commonly known as formalin, in the proportion of two drops for one ounce of the sample. In the present case, there is simply no legal evidence to show that the preservative was added. In the present case, there is simply no legal evidence to show that the preservative was added. The Act contains penal provisions, and I am quite unable to accept the argument of the trial Court that there could be any evidentiary presumption in this matter, that the requirement under the Rules was satisfied. In view of the very grave consequence to the subject, of the possible non-addition of the preservative in the right proportions, this will have to be proved like any other fact by evidence, which may, of course, consist of a statement in writing by the concerned authority. The word ‘formalin’ was found written on the bottles, but whether this implied that some body wanted the preservative to be added or whether it was actually added to sample, we are in no position to determine. The matter is all the more significant, because of the particular reasoning of the basis on which the Analyst has arrived at the conclusion that this milk must have been diluted by the addition of water at least to the degree of 10 per cent. This is not based upon any actual analysis of the proportion of water to milk in the simple. It is based, on the contrary on the fact that the sample contained only 7.6 per cent of solids not fat, whereas if the sample consisted of cow's milk, it should have contained at least 8.5 per cent of solids not fat. Clearly, it is dangerous to argue from this that the milk was diluted by the addition of 10 per cent of water; for the solids not fat, in the original sample, could have suffered loss by deterioration of the sample because adequate steps were not taken for its preservation. In Nanduram v. State1 a learned Judge of the Punjab High Court has held that unless there was evidence to show that requisite quantity of formalin was added to the sample, as prescribed by rule 20, the Court court not conclude that the sample could not have disintegrated or changed in composition. The present is an identical case. In Nanduram v. State1 a learned Judge of the Punjab High Court has held that unless there was evidence to show that requisite quantity of formalin was added to the sample, as prescribed by rule 20, the Court court not conclude that the sample could not have disintegrated or changed in composition. The present is an identical case. I may add, incidentally, that it certainly seems desirable in the interests of implementing the enactment against adulteration of essential commodities, like milk, that the report of analysis itself should contain the particulars of (1) the date of the receipt of the sample, (2) actual date of analysis, and (3) exact steps taken at the office of the Analyst to preserve the sample from any deterioration. Under the circumstances, therefore, it is not possible to hold that an offence of dilution of milk, by adding 10 percent of water, had been committed by the revision petitioner. The Revision will be accordingly allowed, and the revision petitioners will be acquitted. The fines, if paid, will be refunded. R.M.-----Revision allowed.