Judgment :- 1. This appeal along with Criminal Revision Petion Nos 133 and 135 of 1968, was referred to us by Raghavan, J., since according to the learned Jugde "a fairly important question under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act" is involved in these cases. The appeal is against acquittal by the Additonal First Class Magistrate, Tellicherry in Calender Case No. 171 of 1966 which arose out of a complaint from the Food Inspector, Sreepandapuram Panchayat under S.16 (1) and 7 read with S.2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The case against the accused was that he was found keeping in his possession lac dhall otherwise known as Kesari dhall, for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 750 grams of the said commodity from the shop on payment of a price of 75 paise. On analysis it was reported by the Analyst that the "sample represents one of Kesari or lac dhall" which is a totally prohibited article of food. The report of the public analyst was subsequently superseded by the certificate of analysis issued by the Central Food Laboratory which stated that the "sample represents one of Kesari or Lac dhall." The learned Magistrate holding that the data necessary to enable the Court to come to the conclusion that the article in question was Kesari dhall were lacking, has acquitted the accused. 2. The learned State Prosecutor challenging the order of acquittal, pointed out that the necessary data have been given in the certificate and that the decision of the learned Magistrate is unsustainable. The report of the Public Analyst and the certificate of the Central Food Laboratory were both placed before us for our consideration. But on a perusal of the report and the certificate, we are not satisfied that either of them has given the necessary data to enable the Court to come to its own conclusion as to whether the article in question is the prohibited variety of lac dhall and that the accused has committed the offence with which he is charged. But on a perusal of the report and the certificate, we are not satisfied that either of them has given the necessary data to enable the Court to come to its own conclusion as to whether the article in question is the prohibited variety of lac dhall and that the accused has committed the offence with which he is charged. When the article in question is sent for further analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, it is the certificate of the Central Food Laboratory that is to govern the matter because under S.13 (3) of the Act "the certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2) shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst under sub-section (1)". The word "supersede" means "to take the place of by reason of superior right; to make useless by superior power; to replace; to displace, set aside, render unnecessary". So when once the certificate of the Central Food Laboratory is received, the report of the public analyst will stand replaced or set aside. The position is made further clear by sub-section (5) of S.13 which says: "Any document purporting to be a report signed by a public analyst unless it has been superseded under sub-section (3) or any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein. Provided that any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts sated therein." Bat to what extent will the report stand superseded? It is nowhere stated in the Act that when the certificate is received, the report will stand eschewed in its entirety. But the certificate will prevail in respect of the facts stated therein. The facts if any contained in the report which are in addition to those considered in the certificate, those facts will not stand effaced by the superiority of the certificate and can be considered in evidence. In the present case, however, such a contigency has not arisen since the report itself is of no help. It has only given the results of a physical examination like the shape of the article (axe-shaped), starch granules are round and irregular, the palisade cells of the tests are macrosceleroids (rod-shaped) etc. In the present case, however, such a contigency has not arisen since the report itself is of no help. It has only given the results of a physical examination like the shape of the article (axe-shaped), starch granules are round and irregular, the palisade cells of the tests are macrosceleroids (rod-shaped) etc. These observations are of no help to the Court. So, even if we fall back upon the report for matters not covered by the certificate, the position is not improved. The report in fact does not contain anything in addition. The certificate itself cannot conclude the matter. Form the data supplied by the certificate the Court can even reject the certificate. As observed in Nagar Mahapllika, Kanpur V. Ram Niwas (A.I.R.1964 Allahabad 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. Court of law can record a finiding of their own after taking into consideration of 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." Therefore no value can be attached to the opinion stated by the Director in the certificate. Even the opinion stated is neither definite nor precise so as to help the Court to come to its own conclusion. The opinion stated is: "the sample represents one of Kesari or lac dhall." The dictionary meaning of the word 'represent' is,'to exhibit the image of; to serve as a sign of; to personate or set in the part of. The certificate does not say that the article in question is lac dhall. All that it states is that the article shows the signs of or exhibits the image of lac dhall. This is not enough. The Director must be able to say with definiteness that the article is lac dhall. 3. It has repeatedly, been laid down that the certificate of the Analyst should contain actual data and not merely his opinion as to what the data indicated about the nature of the article. This is not enough. The Director must be able to say with definiteness that the article is lac dhall. 3. It has repeatedly, been laid down that the certificate of the Analyst should contain actual data and not merely his opinion as to what the data indicated about the nature of the article. About the duty of Public Analyst, Rupert Cross in his book on Evidence, would observe: "Their duty is to furnish the judge or jury with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusions, so as to enable the judge or jury to form their own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence." To the same effect is the opinion of Hawkins J, in Fortune v. Henson (1896-1Q.B. 202): 'The certificate must state such facts as would enable the justices themselves to come to a conclusion whether the article of food in question had or had not been adulterated". In the present case no data worth the name have been furnished by the Director in his certificate. The analysis carried on by the Director is neither qualitative nor qualitative as is seen from the certificate. The following extract from the certificate will make this clear: Physical appearance Resembles Kesari or lac dhall, Microscopic examination Structures resemble those of Kesari or lac dhall." This is no analysis at all in the eye of law. "Analysis" according to the Reader's Digest Great Encyclopaedic Dictionary, means 'Resolution into simple elements; determination of composition of substances (chemical); identification of elements or compounds present (qualitative); determination of precise amounts of elements etc. present (quantitative)'. None of these methods of analysis is seen to have been resorted to by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory as is inferable from the result of the analysis stated by him. The purpose of chemical analysis is to determine the composition of the substance and that of qualitative analysis is to identify the elements and that of quantitative is to determine the precise amounts of elements. But in the present certificate we see no indication about the composition of the substance or the identification of elements or the precise amounts of elements. The expert should put before Court the materials which induced him to come to his conclusion of that the court may form its own conclusion on those materials. But in the present certificate we see no indication about the composition of the substance or the identification of elements or the precise amounts of elements. The expert should put before Court the materials which induced him to come to his conclusion of that the court may form its own conclusion on those materials. Adjudged in the above standard, it must be said that there was no proper analysis by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. Even in the results obtained by the analysis, we see no definite ness. The Director is not prepared to risk an opinion either way. He tried to escape by saying that the article resembles lac dhall "Resemble" according to Webster's International Dictionary; means 'to to be like; similar to; to bear the similitude of, either in appearance or qualities; as "these brothers resemble each other"; to have a certain appearance, as of being, doing or the like, some specified thing; to seem; purport; appear; as, "to resemble to be rich". So when we say that the article in question resembles lac dhall, all that we can gather is that the article has a certain appearance resembling lac dhall. For our purpose that is not enough. There must be definite data so as to enter the finding that the article in question is lac dhall Indian Journal of Medical Research Vol. LV,1967, page 1011 gives a simple and specific method for detection of adulteration with Lathyrus sativus (Kesari dhall) which is as follows: "L. Sativus seed contains an unusual amino acid/ (B-N-oxaly amino-l-alamino (BOAR))/ which is neurotoxis to experimental animals. (Nagarajan at. a1; 1963). The presence of this amino acid is characteristic of the L. Sativus seed and such presence is limited to the seeds of a few other closely related species of Lathyrus which are not found or cultivated in India. The method reported herein is based on the detection of the amino acid BOAA which is characteristically present in L. Sativus seed but not in the seeds of other legumes commonly consumed as food in India. Experiment and results: One gramme of the powdered sample under test is extracted overnight at room temperature with 100 ml. of 70 per cent ethnol. The extract is then filtered and evaporated on a steam bath to dryness. The residue is extracted with 10m1. Experiment and results: One gramme of the powdered sample under test is extracted overnight at room temperature with 100 ml. of 70 per cent ethnol. The extract is then filtered and evaporated on a steam bath to dryness. The residue is extracted with 10m1. of a 10 per cent isopropanol solution, filtered and used for subsequent analysis by paper chromatography or electrophorisis." In short, as is evident from the above, the characteristic feature of Lathyrus sativus is that it would contain amino acid BOAR. Any analyst who is engaged in the detection, from the given substance, of Lathyrus sativus must be able to detect in it the amino acid BOAR. When once this acid is detected, we can safely conclude that the article in question is Lathyrus sativus. But what the certificate before us shows is disappointing in this respect. No such method is seen to have been adopted. Nothing useful has come out of the analysis. In the circumstances, the court below must be held to have come to the correct conclusion that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving before Court that the article in question is the prohibited lac dhall. We would therefore uphold the order of acquittal and dismiss the appeal.