Judgment :- 1. This appeal filed by the State challenges the acquittal of the respondent in a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter called the Act. 2. On August 18,1972 at about 7 a.m. Pw.1, the Food Inspector, purchased 660 ml. of buffalo milk for a price of Rs. 1.25 and divided and sampled the same into three equal parts in accordance with the provisions of the Act. One of the sample bottles was given to the respondent, the other was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and the third part, M.O.1, was retained by Pw.1 and later produced in court. As per Ext. P5, the report of the Public Analyst, the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for buffalo milk, by the rules framed under the Act and also contained not less than 9% of added water as calculated from the freezing point "Hortvet's method". At the instance of the respondent, the sample part given to him was sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, for analysis and Ex. BI is the certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. 3. In denying the guilt, the respondent, when examined on the prosecution evidence, admitted the sale of 660 ml. of buffalo milk to Pw.1, but contended that the report of the Public Analyst and the certificate of the Director are conflicting and that there is no reliable evidence to conclude that the milk sold by him was adulterated. He also stated that the milk in question was not intended for sale. 4. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent holding that there are variations in the report of the Public Analyst and the certificate of the Director, that some change might have happened to the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory due to the long delay and that there are only slight variations in the percentage of milk sold in the sample. 5. The acquittal of the respondent on these grounds is strongly attacked by the learned State Prosecutor who contended that the acquittal is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained in law and on the facts. The learned State Prosecutor relying on Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Amrik Singh (1972 Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases, 204) contended that the report of the Public Analyst has been superseded by Ex. Dl. The learned State Prosecutor relying on Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Amrik Singh (1972 Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases, 204) contended that the report of the Public Analyst has been superseded by Ex. Dl. No decision is necessary in support of the contention that the report of the Public Analyst will be superseded by the certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory. Under sub-section(3) of S.13, it has been clearly stated that the certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2) shall supersede the report sent by the Public Analyst under sub-section (1). The proviso to sub-S. 5 of this section states that a document purporting to be a report signed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. The necessary data and details are given in both Ext. P5 and Dl. As per Ex. Dl the sample contained 7.2% milk fat and 8.1% milk solid not fat, and the sample was adulterated. The Public Analyst detected 6.7% of milk fat and 8.5% milk solid not fat in the sample sent to him for analysis. The sample was received by the Public Analyst on August 26, 1972 and it was in a fit condition for analysis. The sample sent by the respondent was received by the Director, Central Food Laboratory on October 19, 1973. It has been clearly stated in Ex. Dl that the sample was in a condition fit for analysis and that the condition of the seals on the container and the outer covering on receipt were intact. No doubt it was after a considerable lapse of time, the sample given to the respondent by the Food Inspector Was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. But in spite of this, the Central Food Laboratory found that the sample was in a fit condition for analysis. If the sample was found deteriorated or decomposed or adversely affected in any way due to the long delay, that fact would certainly have been noted in Ex. Dl. No hard and fast rule can be laid down that after the expiry of a certain period, a certain food stuff, even after the addition of formalin or other preservatives, becomes decomposed and unfit for analysis. Dl. No hard and fast rule can be laid down that after the expiry of a certain period, a certain food stuff, even after the addition of formalin or other preservatives, becomes decomposed and unfit for analysis. It is not proper for a court to presume or conclude, unless there are relevant materials on record, that some change might have occurred to the sample due to long delay in sending a sample for analysis or the delay in the analysis. In the present case, the delay was in. sending the sample to the Central FoodLaboratory for analysis. Requisite preservatives are added to the samples for preserving their constituents. Delay in sending a sample for analysis or the delay in the analysis is not per se a ground for doubting the correctness of the result of analysis. But where there has been delay, laches or negligence on the part of the prosecution in launching the prosecution and by reason of that delay the sample gets deteriorated and decomposed to such an extent as to have become incapable of analysis, the accused must be deemed to have been seriously prejudiced and deprived of a valuable right conferred on him under S.13 of the Act. On the other hand, if there was no such-delay or defect on the part of the prosecution, but the accused did not choose to exercise his right to have the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory within a reasonable time and exercised his right only after a considerable lapse of time and by reason of that delay the sample deteriorated, he cannot turn round and say that he has been deprived of his right under S.13 of the Act. 6. In Gopalakrishna Kurup v. State of Kerala (1971 KLT 16) a Division Bench of this Court held that the sample given to the dealer should be sent to the Central Food Laboratory; and if analysis by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory reveals that the milk has not decomposed, the result of the analysis should be taken into consideration. In Gopalakrishna Kurup v. State of Kerala (1971 KLT 16) a Division Bench of this Court held that the sample given to the dealer should be sent to the Central Food Laboratory; and if analysis by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory reveals that the milk has not decomposed, the result of the analysis should be taken into consideration. It was further observed in the case that if the analysis at the Central Food Laboratory discloses that the milk has already decomposed, then alone the accused should be acquitted, since, in that case he has lost his right of getting his sample analysed due to the delay in the prosecution and there is no point in laying down a rule of thumb that, in the case of a particular food article, a particular period alone is the time for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory and if the proceeding or prosecution is delayed beyond that period the accused must automatically be acquitted. In the case on hand, the delay was on the part of the accused and still the sample was found in a fit condition for analysis. No prejudice has been caused to the accused on account of the delay. It is not possible to take into account the report of the Public Analyst where a certificate from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory has subsequently come on record in accordance with the provisions of S.13. Consequently, it would not be correct to say that there was variation between the reports of the Public Analyst and the Director, as the first report of the Public Analyst stands completely wiped out to the extent it is superseded by the certificate of the Director. It was after due deliberations and taking into consideration various factors and after giving due allowance for probable errors that the standard for different article of food was fixed under the Statute. When on analysis, if it is found that an article of food does not conform to the standard prescribed, the sale of such an article is an offence under the Act which does not provide for exemption of marginal or border line variations of the standard from the operation of the Act. To condone such variations on the ground that they are negligible will amount to altering the standard itself prescribed by the statute. To condone such variations on the ground that they are negligible will amount to altering the standard itself prescribed by the statute. The law on these points has been laid down in State of Kerala v. Vasudevan Nair (1974 KLT 617). The trial court was therefore in error in acquitting the accused on the grounds stated in its judgment. 7. In the light of the evidence in this case, the admitted facts and the decisions referred to above, the order of acquittal is clearly illegal and has to be set aside. The counsel for the appellant was not able to point out any ground other than those relied on by the trial court, to sustain the order of acquittal but he submitted that though the Public Analyst and the Director of Food Laboratory stated in their respective report and certificate that the sample was in a fit condition for analysis, the respondent may be given an opportunity to examine the Analyst and the Director and also to adduce other evidence in support of his contention that the result of analysis will vary according to the quantity and strength of the preservative added to the sample. The learned State Prosecutor was fair enough to submit that he does not want to stand in the way of the respondent examining the experts and also adducing other evidence in support of the contentions put forward by him. In the result, I set aside the order of acquittal passed by the court below and send back the case for disposal afresh according to law after giving an opportunity to the respondent to examine the Public Analyst or the Director of Central Food Laboratory or both and also to adduce further evidence, if any. Allowed.