JUDGMENT S.D. Khare and J.M.L. Sinha, JJ. - These are two connected appeals, both directed against orders of acquittal in two cases u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Nagar Swastha Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, is the Appellant in both the appeals. 2. The facts leading to these two appeals are simple and might be briefly stated as follows: In Cr. Appeal No. 1527 of 1966 Raman Lal is the Respondent. On 9th October, 1964, the Food Inspector, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, purchased a sample of 24 ounces of milk from the Respondent, divided the purchased milk in three equal shraes, put them in three separate phials, added 16 drops of formalin of 40 per cent strength in each such phial containing eight ounces of milk and sealed the same. One such phial was given to the Respondent and the remaining two phials were retained by the Food Inspector, one to be sent to the Public Analyst and the other to be kept in the office. The sample which was sent to the Public Analyst was examined by him on 21st November, 1964, (that is, one month and twelve days after the sample had been taken). The Public Analyst found 4.3 per cent fat and 7.6 per cent non-fatty solids in the sample and therefore, declared the sample to be adulterated. The prosecution was launched on 6th July, 1965, that is to say, more than seven months after the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst and the Respondent was summoned by the Magistrate for 15th November, 1965 and appeared before him on that date. There was no justification for the inordinate delay in launching the prosecution. In Cr. Appeal No. 390 of 1966 the Respondent is Mangalia. Milk was purchased from him by the Food Inspector on 13th August, 1963 and as required by the rules the necessary quantity of formalin (two drops per ounce) was added and the purchased milk was kept and sealed in three phials. One such phial was given to the Respondent and two were retained by the Food Inspector, one for the office use and the other for sending to the Public Analyst. One such phial was given to the Respondent and two were retained by the Food Inspector, one for the office use and the other for sending to the Public Analyst. The sample was examined by the Public Analyst on 20th September, 1963, who found that it contained 4.9 per cent fatty solids and 7.1 per cent non fatty solids and was, therefore, adulterated. The total of the two solids, as found by the Public Analyst, was 12 per cent. The prosecution was launched on (sic) August, 1964. The Respondent appeared before the Magistrate on 28th August, 1964 and at his request one phial of the sample was sent to the (hereinafter referred to as the Director) Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, who examined the same on 25th June, 1965. The Director reported that the sample contained 2.8 per cent fatty solids and 6.4 per cent non fatty solids. The total of the two solids as found by the Director was 9.2 per cent only. The Director, however, did not mention in his certificate that the sample received.....by him did not contain any, sign of deterioration and was capable of giving on--examination results as satisfactory as was possible on the date when the sample was taken or when the sample was examined by the Public Analyst. 3. Each of these criminal appeals was first listed before a learned single Judge of this Court. It was noticed that a Division Bench of this Court had in the case of Nagar Swastha Adhikari v. Ram Babu 1969 AWR 465 held that where a prosecution under the Act in respect of milk is launched after 308 days of the taking of the sample the accused is deprived of a valuable right conferred on him by Section 13(2) of the Act of getting the sample in his possession analysed by the Director and therefore, the delay is fatal to the prosecution. It was further held that such an assumption could be made even the accused did not make any application u/s 13(2) of the Act for getting the sample analysed by the Director. The correctness of both these propositions of law enunciated in the case of Ram Babu (supra) has been doubted by the learned single Judge who first heard Cr. Appeal No. 1527 of 1966 and also by the Division Bench before which the appeal was listed thereafter. That is how Cr. The correctness of both these propositions of law enunciated in the case of Ram Babu (supra) has been doubted by the learned single Judge who first heard Cr. Appeal No. 1527 of 1966 and also by the Division Bench before which the appeal was listed thereafter. That is how Cr. Appeal No. 1527 of 1966 was referred to the Full Bench for disposal. 4. Those very points arose for consideration in Cr. Appeal No. 390 of 1966. The learned Judge (B.B. Misra, J.) who first heard the appeal doubted the correctness of the decision in the case of Nagar Swastha Adhikari v. Ram Babu (supra). It was contended before him that the provisions of the proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act could not be disregarded because they were provisions of a special law and overrode the provisions of the general law contained in the Indian Evidence Act. He, therefore, referred that point for decision by a larger Bench, which, in its turn, has referred the same point for decision to this Full Bench. 5. It is necessary to examine all the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 2 of the Act contains the definitions of the terms "adulterated" and "sample." It is, however, not necessary to examine these definitions because it is not disputed that in both the cases samples were taken in accordance with the pro visions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder and if the report of the Public Analyst in Cr. Appeal No. 1527 of 1966 and that of the Director in Cr. Appeal No. 390 of 1966 are held to be reliable, the sample in both these cases must be held to be adulterated within the meaning of Sections 7/16 of the Act. 6. The relevant part of Section 7 of the Act provides that to person shall himself, or through any person on his behalf, manufacture for sale or sell, or store for sale or distribute any adulterated food. Section 8 of the Act lays down how Public Analysts are to be appointed and Section 9 provides for their appointment. Section 10 enumerates the duties of a Food Inspector appointed under the Act. Section 11 of the Act lays down the procedure to be followed by Food Inspectors. Section 8 of the Act lays down how Public Analysts are to be appointed and Section 9 provides for their appointment. Section 10 enumerates the duties of a Food Inspector appointed under the Act. Section 11 of the Act lays down the procedure to be followed by Food Inspectors. u/s 12 of the Act a purchaser of any article of food other than a Food Inspector may have the food analysed. Section 13(1) of the Act lays down that a Public Analyst shall deliver in such form as may be prescribed a report to the Food Inspector of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 is important it provides that after the institution of a prosecution under this Act the accused vendor or the complainant may, on payment of the prescribed fee, make an application to the court for sending the part of the sample mentioned in Section 11 of the Act to the Director for a certificate and on receipt of the application the court shall first ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening are intact and may then despatch the part of the sample under its own seal to the Director who shall thereupon certify to the court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of the receipt of the sample specifying the result of his analysis. Sub-section (3) of Section 13 lays down that 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). Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act provides that any document purporting to be a report of the 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 in any proceeding under this Act or Under Sections 272 to 276 of the IPC. The Proviso to that sub section lays down that any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. 7. The Proviso to that sub section lays down that any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. 7. From what has been stated above, it is clear that where a sample has been taken to be analysed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules and sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, the report given by the Public Analyst shall be evidence in the case and the Public Analyst himself need not be examined before his evidence is read in the case vide Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 1966 SC 128 . The conviction of the accused person can be based on the report of the Public Analyst. 8. After a complaint has been filed it is open both to the complainant and to the accused person to make an application to the court for sending another Phial of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, for the grant of a certificate. The certificate granted by the Director shall supersede the report of the Public Analyst--vide Section 13(3) of the Act. It shall also be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein--vide Proviso to Section 13(5) of the Act. 9. The Act has given power both to the complainant and the accused person to get the sample examined by the Director. The certificate granted by the Director either on the application of the complainant or the accused shall have the same effect and shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. 10. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram AIR 1987 SC 970 the question arose whether the accused could be given the benefit of the delay made by the complainant in launching the prosecution on the ground that the valuable right conferred on him by Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act had been lost. The sample was that of curd. The opinion of the expert in that case revealed that in the case of a food article like curd, it started undergoing changes after seven days without a preservative, but remained fit for analysis for another ten days thereafter. The sample was that of curd. The opinion of the expert in that case revealed that in the case of a food article like curd, it started undergoing changes after seven days without a preservative, but remained fit for analysis for another ten days thereafter. It was also the opinion of the expert that if the sample is kept; in refrigerator it will preserve its fatty and non-fatty solid contents for purposes of analysis for a total period of four weeks. The opinion of the expert further says that if preservative is added and sample is kept at room temperature the percentage of fatty and non-fatty solid contents for purposes of analysis will be retained for about four months and in case it is kept in a refrigerator after adding preservatives the total period which may be available for making analysis without decomposition would be six months. The sample was taken on 20th Sept., 1961. The complaint was filed before the Magistrate on 23rd May, 1962, that is, more than four months after the sample had been taken. The accused applied on 4th October, 1963, i.e. more than two years after the date when the sample was taken, that the sample which had been given to him by the Food Inspector be sent to the Director for analysis and the grant of a certificate. When the sample was received by the Director he reported that the sample of curd sent to him had become highly decomposed and no analysis of it was possible. The case against ' the Respondent had, therefore, to be tried in the absence of the report of the Director. It was also held in that case that if for any reason no certificate is issued by the Director the report given by the Public Analyst does not cease to be evidence of the facts contained in it and does not become ineffective merely because it could have been superseded by a certificate issued by the Director. It was further held that when a valuable right is conferred by Section 13(2) of the Act on the vendor to have the sample given to him analysed by the Director, it is to be expected that the prosecution will proceed in such a manner that the right, which was a valuable right will not be denied to him. It was further held that when a valuable right is conferred by Section 13(2) of the Act on the vendor to have the sample given to him analysed by the Director, it is to be expected that the prosecution will proceed in such a manner that the right, which was a valuable right will not be denied to him. The appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against Ghisa Ram from the order of his acquittal was, therefore, dismissed. 11. The case of Ghisa Ram is an authority for the proposition that where the court arrives at the conclusion that a valuable right conferred on the vendor by Section 13(2) of the Act has been lost because of an act of the prosecution in making inordinate delay in launching the prosecution, it would not be proper to convict the vendor accused. However, the facts of the case of Ghisa Ram are not on all fours with the facts of the two cases before us for the simple reason that in the case of Ghisa Ram-- 1. more than two years' delay had been made before the sample of curd could be examined by the Director, 2. the Director had, at the request of the vendor accused, actually examined the sample of curd and found it to be highly decomposed and unfit for examination; and 3. the only report before the Court was that of a Public Analyst. It has therefore, to be considered in these appeals whether the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Ghisa Ram's case that after the valuable right conferred on the accused person u/s 13(2) of the Act is lost because of an act of the prosecution it may not be proper to convict the vendor accused, can be extended also in cases where (a) the vendor accused has not made any application for getting the sample tested by the prosecution and the Director has not tested the sample, or (b) the Director, while giving his certificate after the analysis of the sample more than tea months after the date of taking the sample of milk did not further certify that no change had taken place in the composition of milk so as to interfere which its proper and accurate analysis. In the case of Dattappa Mahadappa v. Secretary, Municipal Committee, Buldana AIR 1951 Nag. In the case of Dattappa Mahadappa v. Secretary, Municipal Committee, Buldana AIR 1951 Nag. 191 the question before Mudholkar, J. was whether a sample of milk to which no formalin had been added remained fit for proper and accurate analysis more than a week after the sample was taken. It was held that in such a case no presumption of adulteration could be drawn u/s 5(1) of the CP and Berar Prevention of Adulteration Act (Act 2 of 1919), unless proof was given by the prosecution to show the manner in which the samples were sent and the condition in which the milk was when the samples were received by the Public Analyst. It was further held that the report given by the Public Analyst after having made an analysis of the sample a week after the date the sample was taken was of no value. He further held that the value to be attached to the certificate granted by the Public Analyst would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The following passage from "Milk: Production and Control" by Harvey and Hill, were quoted with approval: Despite their minute size, bacteria can accomplish a great deal in various directions. It has been proved that lactic acid organisms which are present in milk in varying numbers even when produced under clean conditions can consume their own weight of food each hour. They absorb food over their entire surface and emit waste products, generally acids, into the milk.... The acid producing organisms cause alteration in the character of the milk which ends in putrefaction. The factors which decide the rate of this change are (a) the quantity originally present in the milk (b) the temperature at which the milk is kept. If milk with a high bacterial content is kept above a temperature of 60 degree F. conditions are favourable for early and rapid souring..... In some milk acid develops to a considerable extent, while in others fermentations take place. 70 Degrees F. sees the rapid development of the lactic acid organisms, principally the streptococcus lactic.... The keeping properties of milk depend upon the number of bacteria contained. In some milk acid develops to a considerable extent, while in others fermentations take place. 70 Degrees F. sees the rapid development of the lactic acid organisms, principally the streptococcus lactic.... The keeping properties of milk depend upon the number of bacteria contained. Bacteria multiply more rapidly at high temperatures than at low and the higher the temperature the more rapidly do they increase, this being; specially the case with those organisms which cause rapid souring and objection able flavours in milk....Bacteria most commonly found in milk grow more rapidly at temperatures above 60 degrees F. At temperatures above 70 degrees F. milk speedily sours. If the liquid contains as few as 10,000 bacteria and is held at 60 degrees F. it will become sour in 53 hours. If the same milk is held at 50 degrees F. it will not sour for 86 hours. Every effort should, therefore, be made to insure that the milk is cooled to a temperature as low as is possible under the prevailing circumstances. 12. In the case of Municipal Committee, Mandi v. Ram Lal 1962 (1) Cri LJ 150 (HP) the view taken was that if sample of milk (to which no preservative had been added) was examined after inordinate delay (21 days in that case) the certificate of Public Analyst could not be accepted unless he certified that the constituents of the milk had not undergone any change. It was also held that the fact that no such certificate was required under the rules was immaterial. 13. While interpreting the provisions of Section 13(5) of the Act in the case of Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 1966 SC 128 Mudholkar, J. observed as follows: This provision clearly makes the report admissible in evidence. What value is to be attached to such report must necessarily be for the court of fact which has to consider it. 14. It is common knowledge that milk sours and curdles very soon. Once it curdless it becomes unfit for anlaysis. Where no formation is added to sample of milk the process of souring and ultimately of curding will be accelerated and may take place within two to three days. 14. It is common knowledge that milk sours and curdles very soon. Once it curdless it becomes unfit for anlaysis. Where no formation is added to sample of milk the process of souring and ultimately of curding will be accelerated and may take place within two to three days. However, where formalin of 40 per cent strength has been added to a sample of milk in the proportion of two drops to an ounce of milk the same remained fit for accurate and reliable analysis for a much longer period. Even where it is not kept in a refrigerator it may normally remain fit for accurate and reliable analysis for about ten months after the date of the taking of the sample. We get the limit of ten months from the report of elaborate tests made by the Public Analyst in a case under orders of this Court. At the time of hearing of Criminal Revisions Nos. 1612 of 1962, 1302 of 1963 and 432 and 595 of 1964, all decided on 30th September, 1965, (un reported) a question arose before Mathur, J. whether in those cases the samples of milk had undergone such change as to render them unfit for proper and accurate analysis. The learned judge therefore, directed the Public Analyst to take 121 samples of cow's milk, each sample of 8 ounces and to mix with them form in of 40 per cent strength in the proportion of two drops to an ounce of milk and to keep on testing the samples week after week till the simples became unfit for analysis. It was noticed that with the lapse of time there was decrease in the non fatty solids. It was also noticed that partial deterioration had set in after 295 days and the milk had curdled after 308 days. The milk had been throughout kept in a Godrej almirah without refrigeration. 15. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra v. Ram Babu (supra) took the view that the experiments carried out by the Public Analyst under the orders of the Court at the time of the hearing of Cr. Rev. The milk had been throughout kept in a Godrej almirah without refrigeration. 15. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra v. Ram Babu (supra) took the view that the experiments carried out by the Public Analyst under the orders of the Court at the time of the hearing of Cr. Rev. No. 1612 of 1962 and connected applications could be relied on as illustrative of what happens to sample of milk to which two drops of formalin of 40 per cent strength to an ounce of milk had been added and the sample was not kept in a refrigerator. The same view was taken by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1969 AWR 815 . About ten month's period h as been accepted as a safe limit during which it may be presumed that the sample of milk will remain fit for reliable and accurate analysis and in several cases decided by learned single Judges the appeals against convictions were allowed or the acquittals by the Magistrates upheld where more than ten months delay had taken place in launching the prosecution and summoning the accused. 16. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the experiments carried out by the Public Analyst under the orders of court in a particular case cannot be regarded to be evidence in other cases and therefore, we must not take into consideration what the Public Analyst had stated in that case after carrying out certain experiments under the orders of the court. 17. In our opinion the contention is not well-founded. The Court while raising a presumption regarding a safe time limit does not incorporate on the record of the case the evidence which was taken in another case. It simply takes notice of detailed experiments made by the Public Analyst under certain set of circumstances to enable it to draw its own presumptions regarding a safe time limit when a sample of milk ordinarily gets deteriorated. 18. The constitution of the milk to which two drops of formalin of 40 per cent strength to an ounce of milk has been added is bound to deteriorate after a certain length of time. 18. The constitution of the milk to which two drops of formalin of 40 per cent strength to an ounce of milk has been added is bound to deteriorate after a certain length of time. Taking the facts and circumstances of each case into consideration it is for the court to determine when it may become unsafe to rely on an analysis of the contents of the milk. There may not be any hard and fast time limit because conditions may differ from case to case. Refrigeration or the addition of greater quantity of formalin might make the milk last longer for accurate and reliable analysis. The climate of the places at high altitudes might by itself serve the purpose of refrigeration. However, on the basis of what has been held in earlier cases in known set of circumstances the court may safely presume that in the plains of Uttar Pradesh the composition of milk is likely to be affected, after a period of ten months or so, if (1) only two drops of formalin of 40% strength are added to an ounce of milk, and (2) the milk is not kept in a refrigerator or at a cool place. 19. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that it might not be proper to fix such limit at ten months and it might be quite safe to fix such limit at two years because it was noticed in some cases that the milk could be analysed and a certificate about its fatty and non fatty contents could be given by the Director even after a period of one to two years. Reference was made to Cr. Rev. No. 1309 of 1963 (decided by Hon. D.S. Mathur, J. on 7th December, 1966). The sample of milk was examined two years and nine months after it had been taken. A certificate about its fatty and non-fatty contents was issued by the Director. It is contended that the Director would not have analysed the sample and issued a certificate about its contents if the milk was unfit for analysis on that date. 20. Where the Director analyses a sample and issues a certificate about the fatty and non fatty contents of the sample it may perhaps be assumed that the milk must be such as could be analysed. The grant of certificate implies that. 20. Where the Director analyses a sample and issues a certificate about the fatty and non fatty contents of the sample it may perhaps be assumed that the milk must be such as could be analysed. The grant of certificate implies that. However, the question that has still to be considered is whether in the absence of any certificate having been granted by the Director that the constitution of milk had not undergone any change so as to interfer with reliable and accurate analysis, whether the same must be presumed simply because the Director had analysed a sample, say after more than a year. 21. The record of the case does not show in what condition the milk was kept when it was found to be fit for accurate analysis even after two years and nine months. In the absence of such evidence it would not be proper to take the view that normally a sample of milk to which two drops of formalin to an ounce of milk had been added may remain fit for reliable and accurate analysis for more than ten months even though it was not kept in a refrigerator or at a cool place. 22. It is not disputed that these very observations shall apply with equal force to other cases also in which the sample of milk was analysed by the Director more than one year after the sample had been taken. 23. A report given by the Public Analyst has not been declared by the provisions of the Act to be final and it can be tested by a further analysis to be made by the Director either at the instance of the accused person, or at the instance of the complainant. However, the certificate granted by the Director has been declared by the provisions of the Act to be final evidence of the facts stated therein. No further examination by any other expect is permissible. The report given earlier by the Public Analyst also stands superseded by the certificate granted by the Director. 24. The next point to be considered, therefore, is: what meaning has to be given to the words "conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein" occurring in the Proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act? The meaning of the word "conclusive" in this context should not present much difficulty. 24. The next point to be considered, therefore, is: what meaning has to be given to the words "conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein" occurring in the Proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act? The meaning of the word "conclusive" in this context should not present much difficulty. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word "conclusive" is "final and convincing (opinion)." The term "conclusive proof" has for the purposes of the Evidence Act been defined by Section 4 of the said Act as follows: When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on the proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it. 25 According to the above definition of the term "conclusive proof"-- 1. The fact must be deemed to be finally proved, and 2. no evidence is to be allowed to be given for the purpose of disproving it. 26. The definition of the term "conclusive proof" as given in the Evidence Act may not apply to provisions of the Act, but in view of the fact that the words "final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein" have been used in the proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act, it may be contended--and in our opinion rightly--that what the legislature meant was-- 1. that the certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory should be final proof of the facts stated therein, and 2. no evidence should be permitted to be given for the purpose of disproving the same. 27. However, finality and conclusiveness attaches to what is mentioned in the certificate itself. When the Director does not certify whether or not the sample could have partly deteriorated by the time it reached him for analysis and whether or not it was capable of being analysed for arriving at any reliable and accurate/conclusion regarding fatty and non-fatty solid contents contained in the sample on the date the sample was taken, it cannot be presumed that the Director had applied his mind to that aspect of the case also. The fact that he has performed analysis no doubt indicates that the analysis was possible on that date. The fact that he has performed analysis no doubt indicates that the analysis was possible on that date. How-ever, to our mind the fact that the sample was analysed by the Director cannot further establish that no deterioration in the composition of the milk had taken place. In the absence of any certificate to that effect granted by the Director, the question whether or not there could be partial deterioration in the composition of the milk by the time the sample reached the Director will have to be decided of by the Court either on the basis of the evidence furnished by the Director himself or on the basis of what the Court considers to be just and proper. 38. Rule 4 of the rules framed under the Act gives the form of the certificate to be granted by the Director. In the first, paragraph of that certificate all that the Director has to mention is the number of the sample, the kind of the sample, the date of its receipt with memorandum and its number and date, the fact that it has been analysed and the result of such analysis. It has also to mention the condition of the seals on the container and the outer covering at the time of the receipt of the sample. The form also provides that if opinion is required on any other matter suitable paragraph may be added. 29. The report of a Public Analyst or the certificate granted by the Director is after all the evidence of an expert who is required to give analytical data (as distinguished from the process of analysis). It is always for the court and not for the expert to determine whether or not the sample was adulterated--vide the cases of-- (i) State v. Nathi Lal 1956 ALJ 340. (ii) Mohanlal Chhaganlal Mithaiwala Vs. Vipanchandra R. Gandhi and Another, AIR 1962 Guj 44 . (iii) P.K. Ali v. Food Inspector, Tellicherry 1967 Ker. LJ765. (iv) Nagar Mahapalika Vs. Ram Niwas and Another, AIR 1964 All 349 . 30. It was observed by Mudholkar, J. in the case of Mangal Das v. Maharashtra State (supra) regarding the report of a Public Analyst that What value is to be attached to such a report must necessarily be for the court of fact which has to consider it. 31. Ram Niwas and Another, AIR 1964 All 349 . 30. It was observed by Mudholkar, J. in the case of Mangal Das v. Maharashtra State (supra) regarding the report of a Public Analyst that What value is to be attached to such a report must necessarily be for the court of fact which has to consider it. 31. The certificate granted by the Director must be "final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein" vide the Proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act. But for obvious reasons it cannot be final and conclusive evidence of the facts such as the following, which shall have to be determined on the basis of other evidence in the case: (a) That the sample had been properly taken and sealed by the Food Inspector. (b) That requisite quantity of formalin (preservative) was added to the sample before it was sealed. (c) That till the date the sample was sent to the Director it had or had not been kept in a refrigerator. (d) That the sample belonged to the accused person and had not got mixed up at one stage or the other to the extent that it became difficult to say which particular sample purchased by the Food Inspector had reached the Director. 32. In the case of Naubat Singh v. State (?) it was held by a learned single judge of this Court that where the certificate of the Director was in respect of a sample of milk taken 48 days before the examination made by him and the required quantity of formalin had not been added to the sample, the Director's certificate regarding the quantity of non fatty solids in the sample on the date examination could not form the basis of conviction. 33. From what has been stated above, it follows that unless the Director so certifies, it cannot be presumed that where a sample of milk was sent to the Director for analysis after inordinate delay no change had taken place in the composition, of the milk so as to interfere with us reliable and accurate analysis. 33. From what has been stated above, it follows that unless the Director so certifies, it cannot be presumed that where a sample of milk was sent to the Director for analysis after inordinate delay no change had taken place in the composition, of the milk so as to interfere with us reliable and accurate analysis. Where the Director's certificate is silent on the point, it should, in our opinion, be open to the Court to form its own opinion whether or not to base the conviction of the accused person on the certificate of the Director-- (a) where the analysis had been made by the Director after a delay which the Court considers to be inordinate, and (b) the Director does not certify that the composition of the milk had not changed so as to interfere with its reliable and accurate analysis on the date the analysis was made. 34. The form prescribed under the rules requires the Director to mention the date of the analysis. The purpose appears to be that the Court should know after how much time the analysis had been made by the Director. The law, no doubt, provides that the certificate of the Director shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. However, that can only mean that what has been stated in the certificate as a result of the analysis on a particular date has got to be accepted by the Court to be final and Conclusive. In the absence of any certificate granted by the Director that the composition of the milk had not changed so as to interfere with its reliable and accurate analysis it should be open for the Court to decide whether or not that fact should also be presumed from the facts and circumstances of the case. 35. In the case of Nagar Mahapalika Vs. Ram Niwas and Another, AIR 1964 All 349 it was held by Mathur, J. that under the Proviso to Section 13(5) of the Act the certificate of the Director is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, but not of any opinion expressed therein. Courts of law can record a finding of their own after taking into consideration the facts stated in the certificate of the Director and other evidence on the record. Courts of law can record a finding of their own after taking into consideration the facts stated in the certificate of the Director and other evidence on the record. In other words, the Courts are not bound to accept the opinion of the Director and in suitable cases may riot base the conviction on his certificate. In the case before Mathur, J. the Director did not appear to have separated cashew nuts from the sample of Dalmoth and therefore, the fat extracted there from could not be said to be a sample of the ghee used in the preparation of the Dalmoth. It was, therefore, held that the date furnished by the Director could be of no assistance in recording a finding whether the ghee used was adulterated. 36. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the UP Pure Food Act, 1950, made the certificate of the Public Analyst conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. It was held in the case of State v. Nathi Lal 1956 ALJ 340 that a certificate granted by the Public Analyst should contain the result of the analysis, that is, the factual data obtained on this Public Analyst analysing the article of food and that such data noted in the certificate would be conclusive evidence of the fact that the analysis made by the Public Analyst led to those results, it is for the Court then to determine on the basis of other provisions whether that actual data leads to the conclusion that the article of food is adulterated or not. We respectfully agree with the view taken in these cases. 37. It was held in the case of Sohan Vs. The State, AIR 1963 Raj 17 that time and date of analysis must be mentioned in the report of the expert so that it may not be argued that by the time the sample was analysed it had undergone a change. 38. The Act does provide for certain special rules of evidence and those provisions being contained in a special law must have preference over the general law. These special rules of evidence as contained in the Act might be briefly summarized as follows: (1) Under the ordinary rules of evidence an expert has to give reasons for arriving at his conclusions. The Act does provide for certain special rules of evidence and those provisions being contained in a special law must have preference over the general law. These special rules of evidence as contained in the Act might be briefly summarized as follows: (1) Under the ordinary rules of evidence an expert has to give reasons for arriving at his conclusions. The Public Analyst or the Director need not reveal the process of analysis and where analytical data has been given, it should suffice--vide Mangal Das v. State of Maharashtra (supra). (2) Under the ordinary law the expert has to be examined in court before his report can be read in evidence in the case. The provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act provide that the report of the Public Analyst or the Certificate of the Director may be read in evidence without the expert being examined. (3) Under the ordinary law finality and conclusiveness does not attach to the report of any expert. However, under the provisions of the Proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act the certificate granted by the Director has been made final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. 39. In our opinion none of the povisions contained in the Act laying down the special rules of evidence take away the power of the court to decide what value should be attached to the certificate of the Director even after accepting the analytical data mentioned therein to be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. 40. Where the prosecution has been launched early and the accused person is still in a position to exercise his valuable right given to him Under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act, no question of any prejudice to the accused can arise and it will be for the accused person to apply either for the examination of the Public Analyst--vide Ram Dayal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another, AIR 1970 SC 366 , Mangal Das v. Maharashtra State (supra)--or for the sample being analysed by the Director. In such cases, since the question of prejudice cannot arise the prosecution cannot fail either because the prosecution had not examined the Public Analyst or because it had not sent the sample to the Director for being analysed by him. 41. In such cases, since the question of prejudice cannot arise the prosecution cannot fail either because the prosecution had not examined the Public Analyst or because it had not sent the sample to the Director for being analysed by him. 41. On the other hand, where the court, after examining the facts and circumstances of any case, can reasonably arrive at the conclusion that so far as that case is concerned, the sample of milk taken by the Food Inspector more than ten months before the date of the launching of the prosecution and summoning the accused be deemed to have become incapable of reliable and accurate analysis, it may not be proper for the court to require the accused person to make an application for the analysis of the sample by the Director. In cases where because of the inordinate delay in launching the prosecution and summoning the accused person and also because of the provision contained in the Act that the accused person can make an application for analysis by the Director only after the prosecution has been launched, the court may not require the accused person to do an act which is not likely to serve any useful purpose. However, even in such cases in order to negative the presumption that prejudice was bound to be caused to the accused, it should be open to the prosecution to get the sample analysed by the Director and to obtain from him a certificate that on the date of the analysis by him the character of the milk had not undergone any such change as to interfere with its reliable and accurate analysis. 42. In the result we have to say with great respect that the case of Nagar Swasthya Adhikari v. Ram Babu (supra) has been correctly decided and the special provisions of evidence as contained in the Act would not justify us to arrive at any different conclusion. 43. That answers the reference made in Cr. Appeal No. 390 of 1966, which shall now be laid, along with our answer, before the learned single Judge, who made the reference, for disposal. 44. Cr. Appeal No. 1527 of 1966 is dismissed. S. Malik, J. 45. 43. That answers the reference made in Cr. Appeal No. 390 of 1966, which shall now be laid, along with our answer, before the learned single Judge, who made the reference, for disposal. 44. Cr. Appeal No. 1527 of 1966 is dismissed. S. Malik, J. 45. These two appeals have been filed by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules). 46. The facts have been given in detail in the judgment of my learned brothers S.D. Khare and Jag Mohan Lal Sinha, JJ. 47. Cr. Appeal No. 1527 of 1966 has been referred to us for decision, while in Cr. Appeal No. 390 of 1966 a point arising under the Act and the Rules has been referred to us. 48. In Cr. Appeal No. 1527 of 1966 Raman Lal, the Respondent sold cow's milk and buffalo's milk mixed in equal proportion to the Food Inspector, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra on 9th October, 1964. The Food Inspector as usual divided the milk into three phials and added 16 drops of formalin of 40% strength to the milk in each phial containing 9 (sic) of milk, as required by the Rules. On 21st November, 1964 the phial sent to the Public Analyst was examined by him. He found 4.3% fat and 7.6% non-fatty solids in the sample. The rules required that cow milk should contain not less than 3.5% milk fat and the milk solids other than milk fat not less than 8.5% and buffalo milk should contain not less than 5% milk fat and not less than 9% milk solids other than milk fat. He, therefore, declared the sample to be adulterated. The prosecution was launched on 6th July, 1965. The Magistrate summoned the accused for 16th November, 1965 on which date he appeared before him.. 49. By reason of the inordinate delay in filing the complaint the Magistrate on 17th March, 1966 held that serious prejudice was caused to the accused because he could not avail of the right of challenging the report of the Public Analyst by asking that the sample be sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory (hereinafter referred, to as the Director) u/s 15(2) of the Act for analysis and acquitted the accused. 50. On 16th May, 1966 Cr. 50. On 16th May, 1966 Cr. Appeal No. 1527 of 1966 was filed in this Court and was admitted and notice was issued on 1st August, 1966. 51. The case came up before a learned Single Judge Mr. Justice T.P. Mukerjee who on 8th August, 1969 referred it to a Bench by reason of a previous Division Bench decision of this Court. The Division Bench consisting of G.C. Mathur and Hamid Husain JJ. referred it to a larger Bench on the 12th of December, 1969 and the case has now come up before this Bench for decision. 51-A. In case of Raman Lal (Cr. Appeal No. 1527 of 1966) it may be noted that no application was made by the accused for sending one of the three samples to the Director for examination. 52. In the other Case (Cr. Appeal No. 390 of 1966) against Mangalia, cows milk was purchased by the Food Inspector on 30th August, 1963. The necessary amount of formalin, i.e. two drops per ounce, as required by the Rules, was added to the milk purchased and they were sealed in three phials. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst who analysed it on 20th Sept., 1963. He found that it contained 4.9% fat and 7.1% non-fatty solids and reported that the milk was adulterated. The prosecution was launched on 3rd August, 1964. The accused appeared before the Magistrate on 28th August, 1964 and at his request one phial of the sample was sent to the Director who examined it on 25th June, 1965. The Director reported that the sample contained 2.8% milk fat and 6.4% milk solid other than milk fat and was, therefore, adulterated. The Magistrate, however, relying on the decision of Mr. Justice Tripathi in Cr. Revision No. 1476 of 1963 acquitted the accused on 16th July, 1965 and pointed out that while the sample was taken on 30th August, 1963, the complaint was not filed till the 3rd of August, 1964 when a period of almost one year had elapsed and the effect of formalin must have disappeared and no correct result during the analysis by the Director could, therefore be expected. 53. Against this decision of the Magistrate Cr. Appeal No. 390 of 1966 was filed by the complainant which was admitted by a learned Single Judge on 24th February, 1966 and came up for hearing before Mr. 53. Against this decision of the Magistrate Cr. Appeal No. 390 of 1966 was filed by the complainant which was admitted by a learned Single Judge on 24th February, 1966 and came up for hearing before Mr. Justice B.B. Misra who on 7th of November, 1969 referred for decision the question of law whether the proviso to Section 13(5), "Provided that any document purporting to be certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the fact's stated therein", could be disregarded and the accused acquitted by reason of the delay when the sample was sent to the Director and he gave his report against the accused. 54. It is not necessary for me to discuss all the authorities on this question. 55. It may be worthwhile pointing out that the Act has made a distinction between the report of the Public Analyst and the report of the Director. No finality is attached to the report of the Public Analyst. Section 13 of the Act provides that the accused-vendor and the complainant may u/s 13(2) apply for one of the samples to be sent to the Director and the Director thereupon is required to send a certificate to the Court in the prescribed form within one month of the receipt of the sample specifying the result of his analysis. Sub-section (5) of Section 13 provides that the report of the Public Analyst unless superseded by the report of the Director may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein while the proviso to Sub-section (5) lays down that the certificate of the Director will be conclusive and final evidence of the facts stated therein. 56. The question that arises in Cr. Appeal No. 390 of 1966 for consideration is that when the Director has examined the sample and has made his report about the fat contents and non fatty solids other than milk fat and as a result thereof come to a conclusion that the sample was adulterated as it did not fulfil the standards laid down in the Rules, can the Court disregard the report on the ground that there had been delay in launching the prosecution? 57. 57. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram AIR 1967 SC 790 which was decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the sample of curd was sent to the Director for examination and he reported that the sample of curd sent to him had become highly decomposed and no analysis of it was possible. It was in that connection, their Lordships held that a valuable right given to the accused u/s 13(2) had been lost to him by reason of the delay in the prosecution as the accused could not get the sample examined by the Director. 58. It is true that in a Criminal Revision that came up before ray learned brother D.S. Mathur he had a series of tests carried out by a Public Analyst, which has been quoted in Nagar Swasthva Adhikari v. Ram Babu 1969 AWR 465 at page 468 (decided by D.S. Mathur and B.N. Lokur, JJ.) and as a result of the experiments he came to the conclusion that "both the cow's milk and the buffalo's milk whether adulterated or unadulterated, when stored in ordinary conditions, is likely to curdle after 210 days if one drop of formalin per oz. of milk has been added and after 308 days in cases where two drops of formalin per oz. of milk has been added. The latter milk is likely to show signs of deterioration after 295 days". These observations have been taken as a guide line and the Courts have generally held that after the period mentioned by the learned Judge it must be held that the milk was not fit for analysis thereby depriving the accused of the right conferred by Section 13(2) of the Act and the accused therefore should be acquitted. These observations have been taken as a guide line and the Courts have generally held that after the period mentioned by the learned Judge it must be held that the milk was not fit for analysis thereby depriving the accused of the right conferred by Section 13(2) of the Act and the accused therefore should be acquitted. In Ram Babu's case at page 467 the learned Judges have however reproduced the evidence of the Public Analyst that "there was no appreciable change in the fat and the non-fatty solids of the cow's milk to which formalin had been added till such milk curdled and that the test could not be conducted after the milk had curdled." As a re suit of the experiments carried out by the learned Judge D.S. Mathur, J. it cannot, therefore, be held that even where the Director was able to analyse the sample after 308 days and given a report about the content of milk fat and non-fatty milk solids, the report of the Director must be discarded. If in Mangalia's case the milk had curdled, then according to the evidence of the Public Analyst quoted by my learned brothers D.S. Mathur and B.N. Lokur, the analysis of the milk was not possible. 59. To my mind, where a sample has been sent to the Director and the Director has analysed the sample and given his report about the fat contents which show that the milk was adulterated, the report cannot be disregarded merely on the ground of delay when the act lays down that the report shall be final and conclusive as to the facts stated therein. 60. It is no doubt true that the Director did not mention in his certificate that the sample received by him did not contain any sign of deterioration and was capable of giving on analysis results as satisfactory as was possible on the date when the sample was taken. If, however, the evidence of the Public Analyst quoted by brothers D.S. Mathur and B.N. Lokur, JJ. in Ram Babu's case is to be accepted, "there is no appreciable change in the fat and non-fatty solids of cow's milk to which formalin had been added in the required quantity till such milk has curdled after which the test is not possible." 61. in Ram Babu's case is to be accepted, "there is no appreciable change in the fat and non-fatty solids of cow's milk to which formalin had been added in the required quantity till such milk has curdled after which the test is not possible." 61. The question whether the milk was in a tit condition for analysis when analysed by the Director is a question of fact and it depends upon so many circumstances that in the absence of any evidence about the condition of the sample the courts cannot lay down an artificial rule that after a certain period has elapsed it must be presumed that the sample was not fit for analysis even when the Director analysed it and has given his report. 62. Where there is no evidence about the condition of the sample, can the court presume that by lapse of time--and if so by lapse of what period of time--the sample must have so deteriorated that it was futile to send it to the Director for analysis or even where it was sent and the Director has given the result of his analysis the Director's findings as to the fat contents and non-fatty solids should not be accepted and conviction based thereon? 63. Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that a fact of which a Court can take judicial notice need not be proved. Certain facts are so notorious in themselves or are so stated in authenticated manner in well known and accessible publications that they require no proof. Section 57 lays down of what facts the Court shall take judicial notice. It includes after setting out under thirteen heads the various facts of which judicial notice has to be taken, "all matters of public history, literature, science or art and the Court may resort for its aid to appropriate books or documents of reference." 64. No book has been cited before us to prove after what period the sample of milk to which formalin has been added in requisite quantity becomes unfit for analysis. Reliance has been placed on certain passages quoted in the judgment of Mudholkar, J. in Dattappa Mahadappa v. Secretary Municipal Committee AIR 1951 Nag 191 from a book "Milk: Production and Control" by Harvey and Hill. It may be pointed out that the passages quoted deal with effect of bacteria on milk. Reliance has been placed on certain passages quoted in the judgment of Mudholkar, J. in Dattappa Mahadappa v. Secretary Municipal Committee AIR 1951 Nag 191 from a book "Milk: Production and Control" by Harvey and Hill. It may be pointed out that the passages quoted deal with effect of bacteria on milk. Bacteria present in milk absorb the fat contents and emit waste products generally acids into the milk. The quotations deal with pasturised milk and other heat treated milks and the effect of bacteria on such milk at different temperatures. When the milk is pasturised or cooled below a certain temperature, the bacteria multiply more slowly otherwise the bacteria absorb food from the fat contents and replace it by lactic acid organisms at a faster rate. The suggestion is that the sample should immediately be packed in ice and kept in an airtight container with as little air in it as possible and that the milk should reach the Analyst as early as possible. 65. There is nothing in the quotations given in the judgment of Mudholkar, J. to indicate that the remarks apply/to milk to which fomalin had been added. Formalin is added to kill the bacteria in milk, if the suggestions contained in the quotations from Harvey and Hill given in the judgment have to be applied to all milk samples, it is impossible in a country like India to have satisfactory analysis of any milk sample. The passages quoted from Harvey and Hill give so many factors which affect the condition of milk that it is not possible* to lay down a fixed rule as to a definite period after which the sample must be held in every case to be unfit for analyses. In any case, in the absence of evidence that the remarks contained in that book relate to milk to which formalin had been added to destroy the bacteria, the remarks cannot be made applicable to the cases before us. 66. Where, however if, the Court has only the report of the Public Analyst before it and the sample has not been sent to the Director u/s 13(2), a question might arise whether the Court can disregard the report of the Public Analyst by reason of the inordinate delay in launching the prosecution when, neither party has applied that the sample may be sent to the Director for further examination. The report, of the Public Analyst has not been made final and if there is material before the Court for holding that the milk is no longer fit for analysis, it may by reason of the delay in launching the prosecution and depriving the accused of the benefit of the opinion of the Director, give the benefit of doubt to the accused and refuse to convict him. In Cr. Appeal No. 390 of 1966 the Director's report is to the effect that the sample contained 2.8% fat contents and 6.4% non fatty solids. The report of the Director as to the fat contents cannot be ignored merely on the ground that he examined the milk after almost one year and nine-months. Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 lays down the standards of quality of the various articles of food specified in Appendix B to these Rules. Sub-rule A. 11.01.01 in appendix B to Rule 5 of the said Rules prescribes the standard of cow milk as under: Cow milk shall contain not less than 3.5 per cent of milk fat, except in Orissa, where it shall be not less than 3 per cent and in Punjab and Pepsu where it shall be not less than 4.0 per cent. The milk solids, other than milk fat, shall be not less than 8.5 per cent. On the basis of the Rule the Director reported that the milk was adulterated as it was not up to the standard. The facts given in the Director's report being final and conclusive and there being no evidence that the sample had so deteriorated that the report of the Director could not be relied upon, my answer to the question referred to us is that the provisions of the proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act could not be disregarded and the report of the Director should have been accepted. 67. In Cr. Appeal No. 1527 of 1966 the whole case has been referred to us. The sample in this case was taken on the 9th of October, 1964. The prosecution was launched on 6th July, 1965 and the accused was summoned for 16th November, 1965 on which date he appeared i.e. almost one year after the sample had been taken. The accused did not apply that the sample be sent to the Director for further analysis. The prosecution was launched on 6th July, 1965 and the accused was summoned for 16th November, 1965 on which date he appeared i.e. almost one year after the sample had been taken. The accused did not apply that the sample be sent to the Director for further analysis. It may be that by reason of the decisions of this Court the counsel appearing for the accused might have considered it unnecessary to apply that the sample be sent to the Director for analysis or to give other evidence to discredit the report of the Public Analyst or to show that the sample of milk had become unfit for analysis thereby depriving the accused of the valuable right given u/s 13(2) of the Act. It may be further pointed out that it was open to the complainant u/s 13(2) to apply that the sample be sent to the Director. If it was his case that the sample was fit for analysis and had not deteriorated, he might have applied to the Magistrate that the milk be sent to the Director for further analysis. That section gives a right both to the complainant as also to the accused to have the milk analysed by the Director. As a result of neither partly applying to the Magistrate the milk was never sent to the Director for analysis and the Director's certificate was not obtained. In my opinion, it would not be fair after lapse of more than five years to set aside the order of the Magistrate and convict the accused. I, therefore, agree with the order proposed that Cr. Appeal No. 1527 of 1966 be dismissed.