Judgment G.N. VAIDYA, J.:---The above appeal was filed by the State, against the order of acquittal, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, on November 26, 1975, in Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1974, filed by the respondents-accused Nos. 1 and 4, against their conviction and sentence dated December 26, 1974. The prosecution case against the accused was briefly as under : The complainant, Food Inspector, duly appointed by the State Government, within the limits of Satara District, as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by name, Chandrakant Maruti Malekar, visited the shop of the firm of M/s. B.T. Sayagaonkar Co., Dhebewadi, taluka Paton, of which the respondent No. 1 and two others were the partners, who were shown in the trial Court as accused Nos. 2 and 3; and the firm was shown as accused No. 4. The Food Inspector claimed to have visited the firm, on November 10, 1973, at 11 a.m. , in the presence of the panchas, Prakash Chintaman Mahajani and Imam Farid Mursal. At that time , accused No. 1 alone was present in the shop. There were various types of food articles, viz., chilli powder tur dal, groundnut oil, Ata, etc. exposed for sale in the shop. The Food Inspector asked accused No. 1 to sell to him food samples, namely, groundnut oil, chilli powder, Satu Ata and Kat for getting the same analysed by the Public Analyst, for the purposes of obtaining the opinion as to whether there was any infringement of the Food Adulteration Act. It was alleged by the prosecution, relying on the report of the Public Analyst, Dr. N.N. Dastur, Public Analyst for the local areas of the Revenue Divisions of Poona and Bombay, that the groundnut oil, which was sold to the Food Inspector, namely, 375 grams for Rs. 2.63, was adulterated. On considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate, convicted accused No. 1 and sentenced him under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, to suffer R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to suffer two months R.I.; and respondent No. 4 the firm was fined Rs. 2,000/-, while acquitting the other partners. Accused Nos. 1,000/- or in default to suffer two months R.I.; and respondent No. 4 the firm was fined Rs. 2,000/-, while acquitting the other partners. Accused Nos. 1 and 4s convictions were set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, firstly, because the prosecution failed to prove that the sample analysed by the Public Analyst was " adulterated oil", within the meaning of the definition, under section 2(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, inasmuch as the report, Exh. 13 was silent as to the percentage of the cotton seed oil in the groundnut oil, sold to the Food Inspector, observing--- "All that is seen from the report of the Public Analyst at Exh. 13, is that, the Halphens test applied at the time of the examination of the sample, showed that the cotton seed oil was present in the said sample. The said report is significantly silent as to the percentage of the cotton seed oil. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved that the oil which was kept in the shop, was an adulterated oil, within the meaning of the definition under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954." The learned Judge, relied upon the decision of the Assam High Court reported in (Santosh Kumar Datta v. Chairman, Sapatgram Small Town Committee and another)1, 1975 Cri.L.J. 1330. Secondly, the learned Sessions Judge also relied on a decision reported in (Laxmandas Sarvottamdas Doshi Co. v. The State of Maharashtra)2, 77 Bom.L.R. 408 and held that the conviction was not sustainable inasmuch as the seal and the sample bottle were not sent separately to the Public Analyst. The acquittal is challenged in the above appeal by the State. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Public Prosecutor, has rightly contended the second ground mentioned above is not sustainable in view of the decision of a Division Bench of the Court in (Enayat Ali Nazar Ali Bhari v. The State of Maharashtra)3, 78 Bom.L.R. 293. Even then the first ground on which the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted, must be upheld, because the report Exh. 13, merely says, " Halphens test for the presence of cotton seed oil positive". The learned Judge has rightly pointed out that Rule 9(iii) framed under the Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules, deals with the percentage of the ingredients of the groundnut oil. 13, merely says, " Halphens test for the presence of cotton seed oil positive". The learned Judge has rightly pointed out that Rule 9(iii) framed under the Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules, deals with the percentage of the ingredients of the groundnut oil. As the Public Analyst has not given the proportion of the ingredients, in the groundnut oil, which he analysed, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was quite justified in holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused. In the result, the order of acquittal must stand. The appeal is dismissed. -----