JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This appeal arises out of the judgement and order dated 5 of April, 1969 passed by a Magistrate, First Class, Meerut, acquitting the respondent of the offence u/S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The facts leading to this appeal can briefly be stated as under On 21st November, 1967 near about 12.30 O'clock noon Sri Vir Singh,(PW 1) Food Inspector, Municipal Board, Meerut collected sample of turmeric powder from the shop of the respondent. The formalities prescribed under the law were duly complied with. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who reported the sample to be adulterated. A complaint was therefore filed for the prosecution of the respondent under section 16 of the Act. 3. The respondent in his statement in the trial court admitted that the Food Inspector collected sample of turmeric powder from his shop. He however, pleaded that the turmeric powder was sold for being used as a medicine to the injuries and not as an edible stuff. He denied that he received any price for the sample. 4. In order to prove its case the pro- section examined Sir Vir Singh (PW 1) Food Inspector, Roop Kishore (PTY 2) and Matroo Lal (PTY 3). Roop Kishorc (PW- 2) was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined. The other two witnesses supported the prosecution case on all material points. 5. The respondent did not examine any witness in his defence. 6. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case came to the conclusion that the charge framed against the respondent was not made out beyond reasonable doubt and, in the result acquitted him. Feeling aggrieved against it, the State of Uttar Pradesh has come up in appeal before this court. 7. 1 have heard learned counsel on either side and have also perused the record of the case. 8. Feeling aggrieved against it, the State of Uttar Pradesh has come up in appeal before this court. 7. 1 have heard learned counsel on either side and have also perused the record of the case. 8. On a persual of the judgement of the trial court I find that the prosecution case has been mainly rejected on three grounds namely : (i) that out of the three witnesses examined on the side of prosecution, Roop Kishore (PW 2) did not support the case and was declared hostile and the evidence of Matroo Lal is inconsistent with the evidence of sri Vir Singh, Food Inspector (PW 1) ; (ii) the discrepancy in the Public Analyst Report and the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, made it unsafe to place reliance on either of the two reports in order to conclude that the sample collected by the Food Inspector was adulterated. (iii) that it was quite likely that the turmeric powder out of which the sample was collected was meant for external application and not for edible purpose. 9. Now, so far as the first reason as- signed by the learned Magistrate for discrediting the prosecution case is concerned, I find that it has no substance. Vir Singh (PW1) Food Inspector consistently supported the prosecution case. Matroo Lal (PW3) also made a statement in support of the prosecution case. The only inconsistency in his evidence and the evidence of the Food Inspector is A-8 that while according to the latter only 450 grams of turmeric powder was collected as sample, Matroo Lal (PW3) stated that the sample weighed 750 grams. The learned Magistrate missed to take notice of the fact that the sample in the instant case was collected on 21st November, 196, while Matroo Lal (PW3) was examined in the trial court on 26th December, 1969, i. e. after a lapse of more than two years. The discrepancy in the amount of weight of the sample could therefore be on account of lapse of memory. It could not be ignored that the collection of the sample of turmeric powder was admitted to the respondent himself. The discrepancy in the weight of the sample was therefore immaterial and should not have been attached any weight. No other infirmity has been pointed out by the learned Magistrate in the evidence of Matroo Lal (PW3). It could not be ignored that the collection of the sample of turmeric powder was admitted to the respondent himself. The discrepancy in the weight of the sample was therefore immaterial and should not have been attached any weight. No other infirmity has been pointed out by the learned Magistrate in the evidence of Matroo Lal (PW3). In my opinion Matroo Lal (PW3) was a quite reliable witness and the learned Magistrate rejected his evidence on wholly insufficient ground. 10. It is true that Roop Kishore (PW2) did not support the prosecution case and had to be declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution counsel. It is however worthy of notice that Roop Kishore (PW2) is a signatory to the notice Ex. Ka-l and the receipt Ex. Ka-2 prepared on the spot. The statement made by Roop Kishore in the trial court was contrary to the contents of Ex. Ka-l & Ka-2. It was therefore obvious that Roop Kishore (PW2) colluded with the respondent when he appeared in the court below to give his evidence. The prosecution case could not therefore be rejected as untrue on the ground that hoop Kishore did not support the prosecution case. 11. Coming to the second reason assigned by the learned Magistrate, it is true that there is some difference in the report of the Public Analyst and that of the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The difference does not, however, appear to be very material. According to the Public Analyst the total ash and ash- insoluble in the sample were 9-1 per cent and 1.5 per cent respectively while according to the Director, Central Food Laboratory they were 9.9 per cent and 0 per cent. It is true that if the percents of total ash and ash-insoluble is taken up separately there is a difference in t opinion of the Public Analyst and the of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, There is however not much difference in the findings of two experts, if t total percentage of the two types ashes is taken into account. According to the Public Analyst the total percentage of the two type of ashes comes 10.6 percentage while according to the Director, Central Food Laboratory i comes to 10.5 percentage. The difference of decimal .01 per cent is negligible. According to the Public Analyst the total percentage of the two type of ashes comes 10.6 percentage while according to the Director, Central Food Laboratory i comes to 10.5 percentage. The difference of decimal .01 per cent is negligible. I is quite likely that the Public Analyst was not able to make as thorough examination of each type of ash individually as the Director was able to do and hence the difference. It may be added that in other respects there is no inconsistency in the two reports. According to the Public Analyst as well as according to the Director, Central Food Laboratory the Boric acid test was positive. Coaltar dye according to both the experts was absent, The Microscopic Examination by the Public Analyst revealed that the sample contained structure of Haldi. The Director, Central Food Laboratory reported that no foreign stare was found in the sample of Microscopic examination. The Director, Central Food Laboratory had mentioned percentage of the Lead and common salt as well in t sample but Public Analyst does n appear to ascertain the presence of Lea or common salt. 12. Apart from the above there is also the fact that according to S. 13 sub. S. (3) the certificate issued by the Director, Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report given by the Public Analyst Therefore if there is any discrepancy in the report of the Public Analyst and the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, it is the latter report which should be accepted as correct. In view of the provision contained in S. 13 sub. S. (3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it will not be possible to reject the report of Director, Central Food Laboratory merely for the reason that it is not in accordance with the report of the Public Analyst. The learned Magistrate has therefore committed an error in refusing to place reliance on the report of Director, Central Food Laboratory merely for the reason that it was not in agreement with the report of Public Analyst. The learned Magistrate has also relied on a single Judge decision of High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 2130 of 1962 which discarded the report of Director, Central Food Laboratory for the reasons of the difference between that report and the report of the Public Analyst. The learned Magistrate has also relied on a single Judge decision of High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 2130 of 1962 which discarded the report of Director, Central Food Laboratory for the reasons of the difference between that report and the report of the Public Analyst. 1, however, fail to concur with the view expressed in that decision. 13. The last reason assigned by the learned Magistrate for discarding the prosecution case is that on the evidence on record it appeared that it was quite likely that the turmeric powder out of which the sample was collected was meant for external application. I how- ever, fail to find any thing on record to warrant such a conclusion. Vir Singh (PWI) Food Inspector was cross-examined on this point. He emphatically denied the suggestion that was told by the respondent at the time of the collection of the sample that the turmeric powder was meant for external application. Matroo Lal (PW2) was not at all cross-examined on that point. Roop Kishore (PW3) no doubt said that the Respondent had told the Food Inspector that the turmeric powder was meant for external application, I have however already said that Roop Kishore (PW2) appears to have colluded with the respondent. The -admission made by him could not, therefore, be made use of to conclude that the turmeric powder out of which the sample was collected was meant for external application and that the Food Inspector had been told about it when he collected the sample. 14. It may also be added in this connection that the respondent is a literate person. He signed the notice and the receipt prepared on the spot. In that ;notice Ex. Ka-1 the word 'PISI HALDI' are mentioned against the column 'KHADYA SAMAGRI KA BIBRAN'. In the receipt Ex. Ka-2 also there is the following sentence occurring in it : - "Khadya Padarath Ko Maini Apni Dookan Me Bekri Ke Liye Pradarshit Kiya Huwa Tha." 15. It would thus appear that in Ex. Ka-1 and Ka-2 there are recitals to indicate that the turmeric powder out of which, sample was collected was treated to be an edible stuff. Ka-2 also there is the following sentence occurring in it : - "Khadya Padarath Ko Maini Apni Dookan Me Bekri Ke Liye Pradarshit Kiya Huwa Tha." 15. It would thus appear that in Ex. Ka-1 and Ka-2 there are recitals to indicate that the turmeric powder out of which, sample was collected was treated to be an edible stuff. If it were true that the turmeric powder was not meant for eating purposes but was meant for external application, and if it were also true that the respondent had told Food Inspector about it, he could conveniently add it while signing the note Ex K-1 and the receipt Ex. Ka-2, or in the alter- native, should have insisted on the deletion of the word 'KHADYA SAMAGRI'. The learned Magistrate has not taken into account either of these papers. The con- elusion reached by him that the turmeric powder could possibly have been intended for external application and not for edible purposes is thus based on no evidence but mere surmises. 16. In my opinion on the evidence of Vir Singh (P.W. 1) and Matroo Lal (P.W. 3) it was made out beyond reason- able doubt that the Food Inspector collected sample out of the turmeric powder at the shop of the respondent and that the said turmeric powder was stored there for being sold for edible purposes. The fact that the sample was adulterated was proved by the report of Director, Central Food Laboratory. A charge under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was thus clearly brought home against the appellant. Coming to the point of sentence, the sample was collected about four years ago and more than three years have passed since the verdict of acquittal was recorded in favour of the respondent. The adulteration in the turmeric powder according to the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory is not of a substantial nature. Taking all these facts into consideration. I feel that it would meet the ends of justice if a sentence of fine of Rs. 50/- only is awarded to the respondent. 17. In the result the appeal is allowed. The adulteration in the turmeric powder according to the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory is not of a substantial nature. Taking all these facts into consideration. I feel that it would meet the ends of justice if a sentence of fine of Rs. 50/- only is awarded to the respondent. 17. In the result the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 5th April, 1969 passed by the court below are set aside and instead the respondent is held guilty of the offence under section 16 U (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- only. In default of payment of fine the respondent shall undergo 15 days R. 1. The respondent is granted one months' time to pay the fine.