JUDGMENT - G.N. VAIDYA, J.:---The above appeal was filed against the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhir, in Criminal Case No. 800 of 1975, in which from the opponent Ghanshamdas Papalal Ladda, the Food Inspector of Bhir, purchased 600 grams, of Besan, by paying its price of Rs. 1.65, and it was alleged on the basis of the report of the public analyst that the sample sent to him was adulterated within the meaning of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act; and the opponent was, therefore, prosecuted under section 16(1)(a)(i) r/w section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove satisfactorily the alleged adulteration of the Besan which was sold to the Food Inspector, because the Public Analyst had not shown the quantity or the percentage of gram dal starch and watana dal starch, in the Besan, sold to the Food Inspector, on November 12, 1973. The learned Magistrate also held that the provisions of Rules 7, 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules were not observed in the case inasmuch as the Food Inspector did not send the sample packet, the memorandum and the specimen seal separately. The order of acquittal passed by the leaned Magistrate, on November 1, 1975, is challenged in above appeal Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Public Prosecutor, contended that the view taken by the learned Magistrate, is inconsistent with the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in (Enayat Ali Nazar Ali Bhori v. The State of Maharahstra)1, 78 Bom.L.R. 293. Mr. Deshmukh is right in his contention. Nevertheless, it is not open to this Court to interfere with the acquittal, because the defence of the accused is that, just before he sold the Besan to the Food Inspector, he had given Watana Besan to another customer, with the same spoon and the pair of scales was not clean. Unfortunately, the report Exhibit 19, relied upon by the prosecution, in the present case, does not even mention the composition of gram dal starch and watana flour starch in the sample sent and analysed by the public analyst. The report does not even show what are the qualifications of the person who had given the certificate, except the signature made as "Chief Chemist I/c, Public Health Laboratory, Aurangabad". The report does not even show what are the qualifications of the person who had given the certificate, except the signature made as "Chief Chemist I/c, Public Health Laboratory, Aurangabad". It does not even, mention the composition of the adulteration sample and hence he cannot be said to have his duty properly. In any event, the Court cannot surrender its judgment merely to the opinion of such a Chief Chemist whose expert or academic qualification is not known to the Court or the prosecutor and who does not do his duty property as he failed to give reasons or the composition. Mr. Deshmukh submits that the prosecution will be faced with difficulties with observations and he must be considered to be qualified because he described himself as the Chief Chemist. There is no doubt in view of this designation that he may be qualified in the eyes of the appointing authority; but his qualifications must be known to the Court, before the Court can surrender its judgment to his "expert" opinion. In the result, the order of acquittal is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. -----