Judgment.- This appeal is against the acquittal of the respondent by the Second Presidency Magistrate, Georgetown. On 18th March, 1963, at 7-10 A.M., P.W.1, Elumalai, the Food Inspector attached to the Corporation of Madras, purchased three ollocks of milk from the respondent near the Beach Railway Station. A third part of this milk, sent to the Public Analyst, properly sealed and secured, was found, on analysts to have been adulterated with 44 per cent of added water, as it contained only 3.1 per cent as against 3.5 per cent of the required milk fat and had only 4 8 per cent milk solids other than milk fat as against the required quantum of 8 5 per cent. The milk was in fact a mixture of cows’ and buffaloes’ milk. The Analyst based the aforeSopinSno^SmsA-11.01.01 and A-11.01.02-in Appendix-B to the Prevention S Food Adulteration Rules which prescribed that cows’ milk and buffaloes milk Shall contain at least 8.5 per cent and 9.0 per cent of milk solids other than milk fat. When prosecuted for an offence punishable under sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the plea of the respondent was that he did not voluntarily sell the sample of the milk to P.W.1, the Food Inspector, that the notice Exhibit F-2 was not read or explained to him, and that the milk belonged to one Kotnanda Pillai and the respondent did not know that it was adulterated This was an untenable plea, but the respondent examined one Selvaraj, an attestor to Exhibit P-2. who was not prepared to state that he was present when P.W.1 purchased the sample of milk from the respondent. The learned Presidency Magistrate disposed of the case with an acquittal order on the short question that since under section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, P.W.1 was bound as far as possible to call not less than two persons to be present at the time when he purchased the sample and since P.W.1 was present only when the Food Inspector was tilling the bottles and sealing them, it could not be said that the requirements of section 10 (7) of the Act had been complied with in the case and for this reason the respondent was entitled to an acquittal. In coming to this conclusion, the learned Presidency Magistrate also relied on the observations of Somasundaram, J. in In re Raja Konar alias Swaminatha Konar1. In this case, the learned Judge has explained the expression ‘as far as possible ‘in section 10 (7). The expression is intended to obviate the necessity of the presence of two persons and securing their signatures it the circumstances under which he takes the sample were such that there could not possibly be two persons present at the time. It does not mean that when two persons are available, the Food Inspector can dispense with them and take protection under the expression as far as possible ‘. The learned Judge further observed that the provision is intended as a safeguard to the accused because a severe punishment is sought to be inflicted for a second offence and the more severe the punishment the greater must be the care shown in observing the procedure laid down in the statute.. The present, however, was not a case - where witnesses had not been requisitioned. It was a case, where, if at all, the attesting witnesses have not fully supported the prosecution case, and, therefore, the question was one of appreciation of their evidence in the light of the evidence of the Food Inspector and not a case for the application of the rule in In re Raju Konar alias Swaminatha Konar1. If the Rules, rested there, I should have been slow to uphold the acquittal order in this case But I find on a perusal of the records of the case that all the tests necessary to find out the milk to be adulterated have not been gone through, in this case. In Public Prosecutor v. Kallur Rayavaram Co-operative Milk Supply Society Ltd.2, Kailasam J., has held on a discussion of the relevant authorities that freezing point test is the fair and safe method of determining added water in milk. The sample milk in the case before the learned Judge was found, on analysis, to contain 7 per cent fat, 6 per cent solids-not fat and freezing point (Rortvet) O. 495. C. whereas genuine" milk has a freezing Point of O.535.C., though it varies from O.510 to O.560 with a mean of O.530. The learned Judge, therefore, found the milk to be adulterated with 7 per cent of added water. C. whereas genuine" milk has a freezing Point of O.535.C., though it varies from O.510 to O.560 with a mean of O.530. The learned Judge, therefore, found the milk to be adulterated with 7 per cent of added water. In the course of his judgement, he referred to certain text books on the subject and accepted with approval the view that it is inadvisable to certify a milk as containing extraneous or added water merely on the basis of a low N.F.S. figure and has emphasised that confirmation should be sought from the freezing point which is gradually being accepted in Courts as a reliable test. In the case on hand, the above test has not been applied which, as I gather from the authorities, is a more conclusive and decisive test. Since that test has not been attempted in the present case, the argument that the Analyst’s Report is conclusive on the facts therein, does not take us very far. In the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal in this case. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. V.S. ------ Appeal dismissed.