Judgment :- 1. The petitioners in all these cases were tried separately for offence under S.16 read with S.7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and R.44A of the rules framed thereunder and were found guilty and convicted by the learned District Magistrate of Kozhikode. On appeal to the Sessions Judge the conviction and sentence were confirmed. They have now come up in revision. The question that arises for decision in all these petitions being the same it would be convenient to deal with them by one common judgment. 2. Two questions have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The first question is whether the courts below were justified in accepting the certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory to find that the sample was, in fact, the prohibited variety of kesari dhal; and secondly whether R.44A of the rules framed under the Act is ultra vires and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.19 of the Constitution. The decision on the second point has been concluded by the recent decision of the Full Bench of this court in Food Inspector, Quilon v. Padmanabha Pillai (1964 KLT.1023), where it was held that R.44A is not ultra vires and upholding the legality of total prohibition of sale, offering for sale, exposure for sale or having in possession for the purpose of sale kesari dhal. 3. The other question that remains to be considered is whether the courts below have erred in holding that the certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory, contained sufficient and adequate data to hold that the sample was kesari dhal. The samples were originally sent to the Public Analyst and the Public Analyst gave his opinion that the sample consists of lac dhal otherwise known as kesari dhal (Lathyrus Satiyus). It was stated in the certificate that characteristic of lac dhal was noticed but the certificate did not give any further details. At the request of the Corporation, the sample remaining with the court was sent to the Director the Central Food Laboratory for his opinion. There the samples were tested and analysed and the result of the analysis has been given in the certificates. What is stated is: Table:#1 4. At the request of the Corporation, the sample remaining with the court was sent to the Director the Central Food Laboratory for his opinion. There the samples were tested and analysed and the result of the analysis has been given in the certificates. What is stated is: Table:#1 4. Under the proviso to S.13 (5) of the Act finality or conclusiveness is attributed to the facts stated in the certificate of the Director, that is to say the result of the analysis. On the result so obtained it would be for the court to determine, no doubt, after considering the facts stated in the certificate, whether the article of food in question is adulterated food or not. I cannot accede to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the court is bound to accept the opinion given by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. As stated in the decision in Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur v. Ram Niwas (AIR. 1964 All. 349): "Under the proviso to sub-section (5) of S.13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, but not of any opinion expressed therein. Courts of law can record a finding of their own after taking into consideration the facts stated in the certificate of the Director and other evidence on record. In other words, the courts are not bound to accept the opinion of the Director and in suitable circumstances can reject it." 5. Now what is contented is that microscopical examination is not a safe or sure test and that the result of the analysis stated in the certificate is not conclusive and sufficient to arrive at a finding that samples were really kesari dhal. Pointed reference was made to the words used in the certificate "similar" to kesari dhal and starch structures "resemble" those of kesari dhal. Regarding the value of microscope in food analysis, Woodman in his book on Food Analysis, 4th Edn. at page 45 has stated: "With many classes of food materials, such as spices, cocoa, coffee & cereal products, the examination for adulterants is far from complete unless the sample has been examined with the microscope. This is because the microscope often reveals much more clearly than does chemical analysis the nature of the adulteration. at page 45 has stated: "With many classes of food materials, such as spices, cocoa, coffee & cereal products, the examination for adulterants is far from complete unless the sample has been examined with the microscope. This is because the microscope often reveals much more clearly than does chemical analysis the nature of the adulteration. For instance, the chemical analysis of a sample of cocoa showed that the amount of starch present was somewhat greater than usually corresponds to the other constituents, but left the analyst in doubt as to whether the amount was greater than could still be explained by the possible natural variation in starch content of genuine cocoa, or implied added starch. The microscope, however, in this particular case showed at a glance the presence of a distinct amount of arrowroot starch, a form that differs so markedly from the starch of the cocoa bean as to be readily distinguished from it. It would surely not be too much to say that in detecting certain forms of adulteration the microscope is the main reliance of the food Analyst..." To the same effect are the observations in David Pearson's book on Chemical Analysis of Foods regarding the value of microscopical examination. So no objection can be taken to the procedure adopted by the Central Food Laboratory. 6. An argument was raised that the word used "resemble" and "similar" in the certificate is a doubtful expression. The word "resemble" has been defined in the New Oxford English Dictionary by Sir James Murray as meaning: to be like, to have likeness or similarity to or to have some feature or property in common with another person or thing. As stated by the learned judge in the context it means, alike or to be common, have similarity to. Similarly, the word "similar" is defined in the same dictionary as: of the same substance or structure throughout; having a marked resemblance or likeness; a thing similar to or resembling another; a counterpart. After thus comparing the starch structures of the sample with the starch structures of kesari dhal the Director has stated that they were similar and he has categorically given his opinion that the sample is kesari dhal. 7. It was then contended that lac dhal belongs to the family of leguminose consisting of more than. After thus comparing the starch structures of the sample with the starch structures of kesari dhal the Director has stated that they were similar and he has categorically given his opinion that the sample is kesari dhal. 7. It was then contended that lac dhal belongs to the family of leguminose consisting of more than. 100 members like lang, lac, toora, lakhori, etc., and that the physical appearance and starch structures of atleast lac and lakhori are alike and indistinguishable with the result that the sample could either be lac or lakhori (which is harmless). Learned Judge has referred to various text books and elaborately considered this question and stated that he was unable to find any textual authority to show that the starch granules of these two resemble or are alike although it might be that the starch granules of the leguminose family might indeed possess certain broad and general common features to distinguish them from other botanical families. It is unnecessary for me to traverse the same ground. Sitting in revision I am not prepared to say that the courts below have gone wrong in accepting me certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory and in reaching the conclusion that the samples were in fact, kesari dhal. The revision petitions fail and are dismissed.