Judgment :- 1. The Food Inspector of the Tellicherry Municipality is the appellant. He filed a complaint against the respondent under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act alleging that the latter sold prepared tea (beverage) sweetened (adulterated) with saccharin and dulcin. The lower court acquitted the respondent, and hence the appeal. 2. The report of the Public Analyst (Ex. P3) shows that the sample sent to him contained cane sugar 3 per cent and artificial sweeteners, saccharin 8 mgs, per 100 ml. and dulcin 9 mgs. per 100 ml. The report also shows that there was no coal-tar dye. The opinion of the Public Analyst is that the sample contained artificial sweeteners, saccharin about 4 per cent of cane sugar and dulcin about 2 per cent of cane sugar. The Public Analyst has further opined that consumption of dulcin is injurious to health. 3. The Addl. First Class Magistrate observes that "there is no prohibition to use saccharin if there is sufficient notice and label" and that dulcin is not prohibited by the rules. This is his reasoning for acquittal. 4. Mr. V. Khalid, the counsel of the appellant, draws my attention to R.44 (g) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules which prohibits the admixture of an article of food with any artificial sweetener except saccharin or the sale or exposure for sale of an article of food in the preparation of which any such artificial sweetener has been used. The term 'artificial sweetener' is not defined in the Act or Rules; but, it is clear that saccharin is an artificial sweetener. This is indicated even by the language of R.44 (g), where the expression used is "any artificial sweetener except saccharin". The further question is whether dulcin is an artificial sweetener. The counsel of the appellant has produced the work by David Pearson M. Sc., (Lond.), F.R.I.C. entitled The Chemical Analysis of Foods, originally written by H. E Cox, Ph. D., D. Sc, N.N. I.C. (Fifth Edition) At pp. 265 and 266 of the book the author speaks about the method of extraction of dulcin. The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, Vol. III, says that dulcin is the same as dulcitol and that dulcitol is a saccharine substance and its chemical formula is also given. The same Dictionary and Cyclopedia, Vol. X, says that dulcin is the same as sucrol. Vol. The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, Vol. III, says that dulcin is the same as dulcitol and that dulcitol is a saccharine substance and its chemical formula is also given. The same Dictionary and Cyclopedia, Vol. X, says that dulcin is the same as sucrol. Vol. XI of the Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia says about sucrol: "A trade-name for paraphonetel-carbamide, a colorless substance, crystallizing in shining needless, of intensely sweet taste, estimated as 200 times that of cane-sugar, without nutritive value, but used as a sweetening material to disguise the disagreeable taste of medicines. Also known as dulcin or valzin." It is thus clear that dulcin is either a saccharine substance (saccharin itself being an artificial sweetener) or a substance which has no nutritive value and which is several times sweeter than ordinary cane sugar. It must therefore be an artificial sweetener itself. The Magistrate's view that dulcin is not an artificial sweetener cannot therefore be sustained. 5. But, that is not enough for setting aside the order of acquittal. It has come out in evidence that the sample taken by the Food Inspector was not treated with a preservative before it was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. It is obvious that prepared tea, if not treated with a preservative, cannot retain its characteristics for a long time. The certificate of the Public Analyst is dated 17th October 1967, whereas the sample was taken from the respondent on 28th August 1967. Obviously, no reliance can be placed on the evidence furnished by the report of the Analyst. Therefore, though I disagree with the opinion of the Magistrate that dulcin is not an artificial sweetener, I agree with his conclusion that the respondent has to be acquitted. The acquittal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Dismissed.