Judgment :- 1. The appellant is the Food Inspector, Cochin Corporation. On 17 111971 he purchased from the accused-respondent samples of cow milk and buffalo milk after going through the formalities prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Public Analyst, on analysis, reported that the cow milk contained. 4.2 per cent of milk fat as against the minimum of 3.5 per cent fixed for Kerala in Appendix A 11 0111 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and 7.5 per cent of milk solids not-fat as against the minimum of 8.5 fixed under the Rules. The buffalo milk was found to contain 6.9 per cent of milk fat and 7.0 per cent of milk solids-not-fat as against the minimum of 5.0 per cent and 9.0 per cent respectively fixed under the Rules. The Public Analyst stated that the samples did not conform to the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration R.1955 and were, therefore, adulterated. The Public Analyst was also of opinion that the cow milk contained not less than 11 per cent and the buffalo milk not less than 22 per cent of added water as calculated from the milk solids-not-fat content. No decomposition had taken place that would interfere with the analysis. A complaint was filed for contravention of S.7(i)(v) read with S.2(i)(a) and (1) and 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and R.44(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration R.1955. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, who tried the case, observed: "if water is added to the standard cow's milk or buffalo's milk the percentage of water content should necessarily go up causing thereby a corresponding reduction in the percentage of milk fat and also milk solids-not-fat. There cannot be a mere reduction in the percentage of milk solids not-fat alone. It will be noted that in the instant case the percentage of milk fat in the samples is considerably higher than the minimum prescribed. The prosecution therefore has a duty to explain as to how when the milk-fat content is considerably higher than the minimum prescribed the percentage of milk solids-not-fat is below the minimum prescribed. The Analyst's reports do not throw any lighten that question. In' these circumstances, it would not be safe to rely on the Analyst's reports alone to come to the conclusion that the samples in question are adulterated. The Analyst's reports do not throw any lighten that question. In' these circumstances, it would not be safe to rely on the Analyst's reports alone to come to the conclusion that the samples in question are adulterated. It is quite possible that the Analyst's reports are erroneous or that the cow and buffalo from the udders of which the milk were drawn were not given the proper feed." The court followed the decision Sultan Shah v. State (1973 Crl. Q. 1413) and ' acquitted the accused. The correctness of the reasoning adopted by the Magistrate is challenged in this appeal. 2. The appellant would contend that when standards are fixed under the Rules and the Public Analyst certifies that the sample sent for analysis was below the standard it was incumbent on the Court to accept the report as evidence in the case, and in the absence of rebutting materials, to act upon it. in the instant case, no materials have been placed to show that the report of the Public Analyst was wrong and hence the acquittal is not justified. 3. S.13(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act directs that a report signed by a Public Analyst unless superseded by a certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, may be used as evidence of the facts stated' therein in proceedings under the Act. No rebutting evidence has been adduced in the case to show that the facts stated in the reports viz., the percentage of milk fat and milk solids-non-fat found on analysis are erroneous. If they are not erroneous, there is no doubt that the samples sold to the Food Inspector were sub-standard in respect of milk solid-non-fat. 4. Under S.2 (i) of the Prevention of Food. Adulteration Act, an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated . (a) if the article sold by the vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice or is not of the nature, substance or quality it purports or is represented to be; (1) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the" prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities which are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability' 5. Where the Statute prescribes a fixed standard of excellence for an article, a sample thereof will be considered as adulterated if it falls below the standard. In the case of milk in addition to the standard prescribed under the Act, R.44 (b) prohibits sale thereof if it contains added water. Thus sale of milk which does not conform to the standard prescribed and sale of milk with added water are made separate and independent offences under the Act. The non-conformity with the standard prescribed need not be due to addition of water or other adulterants. It is a recognised fact that in the case of milk, the composition varies in individual cows and also depends upon the breed of the cow, the manner of its feeding, the time of the year, the time of the day, the interval between milchings and other similar factors. A. G. Woodman in his book on "Food Analysis' says that the poorest milk is produced during the spring and early summer months, the richest during the seasons 9f Autumn and early winter, when the cattle are getting a smaller proportion of green feed, milk that has been drawn in the evening is nearly always richer in fat than the morning milk, and if different portions of the whole quantity of milk obtained at a single milking are examined separately they will be found to show marked differences in fat content, especially as between the first and last portions (See 4th Edn Pages 124 to 126.) "The period of lactation has an effect on the composition of the milk. The total solids, fat and S.N.F. fall during the second month and then rise until the ninth or tenth month, after which there is a general diminution as the lactation ceases". (See Chemical Analysis of Foods by Pearson, 5th Edition Page 323). The framers of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were not unaware of the above factors which affect the composition of milk and that is why a fixed 'percentage is not prescribed for either milk fat or milk solid-non-fat but only a limit of variability is mentioned in the standard. The Act itself provides in S.3 for the constitution of the Central Committee for Food Standards consisting of qualified persons for advising the Government in the matter of fixing standards for food etc. The Act itself provides in S.3 for the constitution of the Central Committee for Food Standards consisting of qualified persons for advising the Government in the matter of fixing standards for food etc. Wherever the standards are fixed by the Statute, it is not for the courts to consider their reasonableness or correctness. It is not permissible for an accused to prove that though the standard prescribed is not attained the article of food is not adulterated (see M. V. Joshi v. M. V. Shimpi (AIR. 1961 SC. 1494). Standards having been fixed, any person who deals with articles of food which do not conform to them contravenes the provisions of the Act and is liable to punishment thereunder (Jagadish Prasad v. State of West Bengal AIR. 1972 SC. 2047). The report of the Public Analyst being evidence in the case, in the absence of definite materials it is not open to an accused to say that it is erroneous and should not be acted upon. 6. On behalf of the accused, a contention has been raised that the test adopted by the Public Analyst to find out whether there is added water is not either safe or conclusive and that the Public Analyst should have adopted the freezing point test or what is generally known as the Hortvet's method which has been accepted as the more dependable method for finding out whether there is added water in a particular sample of milk. Reliance has been placed on the decision. Public Prosecutor v. K. R. Co-op: M. Society (AIR. 1964 Madras 301) where Kailasam J. after referring to standard books on Food Analysis observed: "From the text books above mentioned it can be taken that the freezing point test is accepted by Courts as the fair and safe method of determining the added water in milk and that the freezing point of milk varies from 0-510 to 560 with a mean of 0-530. It has also to be noted that it is difficult to distinguish a sample of milk with added water and a sample of pure quality milk by determining the specific gravity or the percentage of solids alone". Pearson on Chemical Analysis of Foods (5th Edition Page 336) states: "It is well-known that cows produce milk (particularly in April and August) which contains less than 8.5 per cent. Pearson on Chemical Analysis of Foods (5th Edition Page 336) states: "It is well-known that cows produce milk (particularly in April and August) which contains less than 8.5 per cent. (the presumptive minimum) of N.F.S. It is inadvisable, therefore, to certify a milk as containing extraneous (or added) water merely on the basis of a, low N.F.S. figure alone but confirmation should be sought from the freezing point". Woodman in his book on Food Analysis also recommends the freezing point test in doubtful cases or as a confirmatory evidence. The reliability of the freezing, point test has been recognised in several decisions. (See M.R. Ruparel v. State of Maharashtra (1965) II S C.W.R. 561), Gopinathan Nair v. Palani (1971 KLT. 248), State of Kerala v. Vasudevan Nair (1974 KLT. 617 at page 626 F.B.). It is evident from the reports of the Public Analyst in the instant case that the percentage of added water was calculated not by adopting the freezing point test but by calculating the milk solids-not-fat content alone. We need only say that the Public Analyst should have followed the freezing point test which has been considered as a reliable method of finding out the water contents in the sample to see if there has been contravention of R.44(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The omission, however, is not of much consequence in this case because the charge against the accused rests not only on R.44(b) but also on sale of milk which does not conform to the standard fixed under the Act. The report of the Public Analyst shows that the milk sold by the accused was below standard and, therefore, adulterated. 7. The foregoing discussion would show that the reasons given by the trial court for acquitting the accused in the case are not sustainable. 8. Then the question is whether there are sufficient reasons for interference on the facts of this case. Going by the complaint, the sample was purchased on 17 111971. The reports of the Public Analyst are dated 7-12-1971. But the complaint was filed in court only on 3010 72, nearly about a year after the sampling. Under S.13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the accused has got a right to move the court to send the sample in his possession for analysis to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for a certificate. But the complaint was filed in court only on 3010 72, nearly about a year after the sampling. Under S.13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the accused has got a right to move the court to send the sample in his possession for analysis to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for a certificate. Milk being an article of food which is liable to decomposition by the efflux of time any delay in filing the complaint would prejudicially affect the right of the accused conferred under S.13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act because the accused could exercise the right only after the filing of the complaint. It is highly essential that the Food Inspectors who are authorised under the Act to launch prosecution discharge their functions promptly and expeditiously. We find that in Gwalior Municipality v. Kishan Swaroop (AIR. 1964 M.P.180) the High Court refused to interfere with the order of acquittal under almost similar circumstances. The right conferred on the accused under S.13(2) is a valuable right and to deprive the accused of that right due to delay in filing the complaint is sufficient reason for not interfering with the order of acquittal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.