JUDGMENT - M.N. Chandurkar, J.:---The Appellant who deals in milk has been convicted under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, because the sample of buffalos boiled milk which was obtained by the Food Inspector on 22nd April, 1968 from the shop of the appellant was found to be adulterated. The Food Inspector had purchased 700 millilitres of buffalos boiled milk and had sent it for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Report Ex. C made by the Public Analyst under his signature shows that the sample contained 17.8% of extraneous water. The prosecution also examined the Public Analyst who made the report. The Public Analyst has deposed that though the report is dated 16th May, 1968, the sample was analysed on the same day on which it is received. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst on the same day on which it was obtained by Food Inspector. It appears that it was contended before the learned Presidency Magistrate that the sample was not properly preserved because while Rule 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, requires the addition of 56 drops of formalin, only 48 drops of formalin were added. The learned Magistrate took the view that the preservative added could not be said to be highly inadequate and since the sample was not all found to be decomposed or spoiled, he declined to accept the contention of appellant that the analysis of the sample could not be relied upon and that the report of the Public Analyst should be ignored. The appellant was thus convicted under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default to suffer further R.I. for four months. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging his conviction. It is not necessary to go into the several contentions raised by the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant because in my view, this appeal should be allowed in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1008 to 1011 of 1967 decided on 25th April, 1969)1. It is not necessary to go into the several contentions raised by the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant because in my view, this appeal should be allowed in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1008 to 1011 of 1967 decided on 25th April, 1969)1. The Division Bench has taken the view that the report of the Public Analyst not made at the same time, when the sample is analysed but made later on the basis of the notes of analysis made at the time of analysis, will cease to have evidentiary value which the Act imparts to the report of the Public Analyst. It was contended before the Division Bench that the date of the Public Analysts report is only the date, on which the Public Analyst signed it and it did not necessarily imply that the Public Analyst made his analysis on the date which the analysis report bears. In the case before the Division Bench the reports of the Public Analyst bore a date much later than the date on which the samples were sent to the Public Analyst. Rejecting this contention, the Division Bench observes : "In each case the certificate which the analyst has given is "I further certify that I have caused to be analysed the aforesaid sample and declare the result of the analysis to be as follows". This is a direct declaration of the result of the analysis and without anything more necessarily implies that the result was obtained on the date on which the certificate was signed. If it was the prosecution case that the Public Analyst has made his analysis soon after the receipt of the samples but had kept a record of the analysis with him and merely gave the certificate from that record than this report will loose the evidentiary value which is imparted to it by the Act. It will really be these entries which will be endowed with the evidentiary value which the act imparts to the Public Analysts report". The present case is squarely covered by the observations. The report of the Public Analyst bears the date "16th day of May, 1968". The prosecution had examined the Public Analyst, who has signed this report and he has stated that the sample was analysed on the same day on which it was received. The present case is squarely covered by the observations. The report of the Public Analyst bears the date "16th day of May, 1968". The prosecution had examined the Public Analyst, who has signed this report and he has stated that the sample was analysed on the same day on which it was received. Assuming that this statement is true, then the date on which the report should bear, should have been the date of analysis, but admittedly the report bears a later date; and in view of the decision of the Division Bench referred to above, the report of the Public Analyst would not have the evidentiary value contemplated by the Act. The report Ex. C will, therefore, have to be ignored. The primary evidence of analysis has not been produced and there is, therefore, no legal evidence on record to show that the sample was not of the prescribed purity. In this view of the matter, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The result is that the appeal of the appellant is allowed and his conviction and sentence for the offence under section 7 (1) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are set aside and he is acquitted. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant. Bail bond of the appellant shall stand cancelled. -----