JUDGMENT S. M. Sikri, J. 1. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Calcutta under Art. 134(l)(c) of the Constitution is directed against its judgment affirming the judgment of the Presidency and Municipal Magistrate. Third Court, Calcutta, convicting the appellants under section 16(l)(a)(i), 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - hereinafter referred to as the Act. The High Court by maintaining the conviction reducted the fine. In the order granting the certificate the High Court observed that two substantial questions of law arose from its judgment, namely, (1) 'that to make public analyst's report a report under section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and admissible as such, it is the imperative obligation of the analyst to carry on all the tests'; and (2) that where the accused is not informed of a prosecution under this Act within a reasonable time, it deprives him of his right to avail of the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act and consequently renders the conviction bad. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants has raised six points before us and in order to appreciate his contentions it is necessary to give the relevant facts. On January 29, 1959, Dr. H. S. Mondal, Food Inspector, visited the shop, known as Mahabodhi Tea House, inspected the stock of tea in the shop and took samples from the tea which he suspected to be adulterated. He took 12 oz. of tea and paid Rs. 1.50. He served a notice in form 6 on the appellant, Sukamal Gupta. He divided the sample into three equal parts and put the tea into three dry, clean glass phials. The phials were then corked, fastened up, marked, sealed and labelled according to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, hereinafter called the Rules. He kept one phial himself, one sealed phial was given to the appellant and the third phial was sent with a memorandum to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst received the sealed phial on January 30, 1959. On March 16, 1959, the report, Ex. 2, was signed by the Public Analyst and made available to the Food Inspector. He kept one phial himself, one sealed phial was given to the appellant and the third phial was sent with a memorandum to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst received the sealed phial on January 30, 1959. On March 16, 1959, the report, Ex. 2, was signed by the Public Analyst and made available to the Food Inspector. This report reads as follows : "Report No. T/410 I hereby certify that I Madan Mohan Saha Public Analyst for the area under Corporation of Calcutta duly appointed under the provision of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, received on the 30th day of January, 1959, from Dr. H. S. Mondal, Food Inspector, Calcutta Corporation, a sample of tea bearing serial No. 9625 and Lab. No. 3035 for analysis, properly sealed and fastened and that I found the seal intact and unbroken. I further certify that I have analysed the aforementioned sample and declare the result of my analysis to be as follows : Total Ash 8.43% Ash insoluble in HCL 3.22% Water soluble extract 36.70% and am of the opinion that the sample of tea does not conform to the prescribed standards. The sample is adulterated. Signed this 16th day of March, 1959. Sd. M. Saha Public Analyst." Complaint was lodged on May 5, 1959, and summons received by the appellant on January 30, 1960. The Presidency Magistrate convicted the appellant on April 30, 1960. 3. The sample is adulterated. Signed this 16th day of March, 1959. Sd. M. Saha Public Analyst." Complaint was lodged on May 5, 1959, and summons received by the appellant on January 30, 1960. The Presidency Magistrate convicted the appellant on April 30, 1960. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends : (1) That the report of the Public Analyst not being based on six tests was not in accordance with the Rules, and, therefore, illegal; ' (2) That the Public Analyst was not examined in spite of the prayer of the appellant, which has caused prejudice to the appellant; (3) That the delay in instituting the prosecution has deprived the appellant of the right under section 13(2) of the Act and therefore rendered the conviction illegal; (4) That the delay in examination of the sample by the Public Analyst has caused prejudice to the appellant inasmuch as the sample sent to the Public Analyst might have deteriorated; (5) That it was the duty of the Food Inspector to have seized the entire quantity of the chest under section 10(4); and (6) That the report and the evidence do not establish that the tests (a), (b) and (c) mentioned in A-14 of Appendix B to the Rules were carried out. 4. It seems to us that there is no force in the first contention raised by the learned Counsel, Section 2(i)(1) of the Act provides that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in qualities which are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability. Section 7 prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale or storing, selling or distributing any adulterated food. Section 16(l)(a) makes it an offence if any person whether by himself or by any person on his behalf. stores, sells or distributes any article of food in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any of the Rules made thereunder. Rule 5 of the Rules provides that standards of quality of the various articles of food specified in Appendix B to these rules are as defined in that appendix. In Appendix B. A-14 provides the definition of tea, its standard and quality thus : "A. 14. Rule 5 of the Rules provides that standards of quality of the various articles of food specified in Appendix B to these rules are as defined in that appendix. In Appendix B. A-14 provides the definition of tea, its standard and quality thus : "A. 14. Tea means tea derived exclusively from the leaves and buds of plants of the Camellia genus and the species. It shall conform to the following specifications : (a) Total ash determined on tea dried to a constant weight at 1000C 5.0 to 8.0 per cent (b) Total ash soluble in boiling Distilled Water Not less than 40.0 per cent of total ash (c) Ash insoluble in Hcl Not more than 1.0 per cent (d) Extract obtained by boiling dry tea (dried at constant weight at 1000 C) with 100 parts of distilled water for one hour under reflux Not less than 35 per cent (e) Alkalinity of Soluble ash Not more than 2 per cent expressed as K H2 o7 Not less than 1.3 per cent and (f) Crude fibre Not more than 1.5 per cent". 5. It seems to us that if a sample of tea fails to conform to any of the above six specifications, by virtue of the definition of "adulterated" the sample would be deemed to be adulterated because then the constituents of the tea would be present in excess of the limits of variability mentioned in the last column in A-14. For example, if it is found that the ash insoluble in in Hel is more than 1 per cent the sample would be deemed to be adulterated notwithstanding that the sample fulfilled the specifications in (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) of A-14. In this case the ash insoluble in Hel was 3.22% while the specification prescribes ash insoluble in Hel not more than 1 per cent. This is not to say that the Public Analyst should not carry out all the tests, for in some cases sentence, if not conviction, may depend on the total picture. Coming to the next point, it is true that the Public Analyst was not examined, but instead of him the Assistant Public Analyst who had analysed the sample was examined as Court Witness. Coming to the next point, it is true that the Public Analyst was not examined, but instead of him the Assistant Public Analyst who had analysed the sample was examined as Court Witness. In his deposition he says that he analysed the sample and submitted the data after analysis to the Public Analyst and entered that data in the Public Analyst's Register, Ex. 6 Fie proved the report of the Public Analyst and said that the report was based on the data supplied by him. He was cross-examined by the Defence but no question was put to him as to the tests conducted by him. His result was accepted and attempt was made to justify the excess total ash. It was nowhere suggested to him whether he had dried the tea according to the test mentioned in the specification (a) in A-14. Question was put to him to determine the grade of tea and he said : "There are teas of different grades and qualities. But the grade and quality of the sample of tea was not noted by the Public Analyst as it is not necessary to note it under the P.F.A. Act and Rules. I cannot say if the sample is admixture of tea of different grades and qualities because we as analysts are to see and consider whether the tea conforms to the standard as fixed under P.F.A. Act and Rules". In view of the above evidence of the Assistant Public Analyst we cannot see how the appellant has been prejudiced by the Public Analyst not having been examined. 6. We may here deal with the sixth point raised by the learned Counsel regarding the tests. The High Court repelled the contention thus : "The question is whether in terms of the submission of Mr. Dutt analysis was made according to the specifications given to A-14. In his cross-examination he has stated that he could not say if the sample was admixture of tea of different grades and qualities because they (analysts) were to sec and consider whether the lea conformed to the standard as fixed under P.F.A. Act and rules. From this statement it follows that the analyst followed the procedure as prescribed". In our view the High Court was right in its conclusion. From this statement it follows that the analyst followed the procedure as prescribed". In our view the High Court was right in its conclusion. From the trend of the cross-examinations of the Assistant Public Analyst it appears that the Defence accepted the results of the tests and they were content to assume that the proper tests had been followed. The report of the Public Analyst', Ex. 2, itself indicates that the tests were followed because the exact language of (b) and (c), A-14, is used. As far as (a) is concerned, it is true it only mentions total ash and does not say "total ash determined on tea aried to a constant weight at 1000 C." Reading the report of the Public Analyst and the evidence of the Assistant Analyst it appears to us that the High Court was right in concluding that proper tests had been carried out. 7. Regarding the third point raised by the learned Counsel, it was held by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1970 that Section 13(2) of the Act confers a valuable right to have the sample given to him analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory but "the reason why the conviction cannot be sustained is that the accused is prejudiced in his defence and is denied a valuable right of defending himself solely due to the deliberate acts of the prosecution". In this case no prejudice of the defence has been shown. It has not been established on the record that the sample of tea which was available with the appellant had deteriorated by the time the summons was received. He never utilised the right under section 13(2) of the Act of sending the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. In fact he did not put any question to the Assistant Public Analyst as to whether the tea is capable of deterioration within a year. Accordingly we hold that there is no force in this point. 8. There is equally no merit in the fourth point because he has not been able to establish that the tea had deteriorated between January 29, 1959 and March 16, 1959 assuming that the sample was analysed as late as March 16, 1959. 9. Coming to the fifth point, section 10(4) reads as follows : "10(4). 8. There is equally no merit in the fourth point because he has not been able to establish that the tea had deteriorated between January 29, 1959 and March 16, 1959 assuming that the sample was analysed as late as March 16, 1959. 9. Coming to the fifth point, section 10(4) reads as follows : "10(4). If any article intended for food appears to any Food inspector to be adulterated or misbranded, he may seize and carry away or keep in the safe custody of the vendor such article in order that it may to dealt with as hereinafter provided". According to the learned Counsel the Food Inspector was obliged under this sub-section to seize all the tea that the appellant had in his possession on January 29, 1959. We are unable to give any such interpretation to the subsection. In our view it only confers a discretionary power on the Food Inspector in suitable cases to seize and carry away or keep in safe custody the articles of food which appear to the Food Inspector to be adulterated or misbranded. 10. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.