JUDGMENT - S.C. PRATAP, J.:---This is an appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal dated 28th March 1977, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Bombay, in Case No. 363/S of 1976. 2. The original prosecution arose out of proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The article in question was ice cream, samples whereof were taken by the Food Inspector, (the complainant) on 28th May, 1973. The said sample was analysed as per the report of the Public Analyst either on 24th June, 1973, or on 25th June, 1973. The analysis of the said sample, according to the report of the Public Analyst, continued for about four days. The report of the Public Analyst indicated that the ice cream in question contained fat 3.2% which should have been not less than 8% an it further contained solids 34.7% which should not have been less than 36% and protein 1.3% which should not have been less than 3.5%. The report further indicate that there was no starch found in the ice cream. The report further stated that there was also absence of prohibited colours. The evidence of the public analyst in Court showed that except for the deficiency in the matter of fat, proteins and about 1% deficiencies of solids, the ice cream in question was otherwise in accordance with the requirement of the standards on that behalf. Considering the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution, which consisted of 2 food inspectors, 1 panch and the Public Analyst the learned trial Magistrate by his well considered and well reasoned judgment has held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case and the charge against the accused persons. The accused were consequently acquitted. 3. In this appeal against acquittal by the State, I have heard Mr. S.B. Patil, the learned Public Prosecutor. The accused are represented before me by Mr. M.S. Sanghvi, the learned Counsel. 4. Going through the record of the case and hearing the respective Advocates, I see no good reason to take any different view of the matter than the one taken by the learned trial Magistrate. I have my self gone through the evidence of the panch as also that of the Food Inspectors as also that of the Public Analyst. The cross-examination of the Food Inspectors shows inherent discrepancy between their evidence. I have my self gone through the evidence of the panch as also that of the Food Inspectors as also that of the Public Analyst. The cross-examination of the Food Inspectors shows inherent discrepancy between their evidence. Such discrepancies cannot be brushed aside as merely of a very light nature. The question is whether the evidence of such discrepant nature can, with even some amount of certainty be relied upon against the accused? In the circumstances aforesaid, it is not possible to do so. The panch, an independent prosecution witness, has from the beginning of his evidence supported the accused and he has given a total lie to the evidence of the Food Inspectors as to the mode and manner in which the samples were alleged to have been drawn, collected and sealed. We then also have the evidence of the Public Analyst himself who has in no uncertain terms stated that if the ice-cream is in a liquid or semi-liquid form prior to the addition of formulin and if it is partially decomposed, before the addition of formulin, the values of the mixture may be affected. The Public Analyst further states that if prior to the addition of formulin there has been growth of bacteria in the sample, the addition of formulin has no effect on it. This evidence of the Public Analyst assumes importance in view of the admission of the Food Inspector himself that he cannot say as to how long formulin that he had added to the sample in question was lying in his office. He further admits that he had not prepared that formulin. He also admits that the same has also not been prepared in his presence. 5. This evidence on the important ingredient of formulin which is an important preservative of a food sample is, in my view, fatal to the prosecution case. In the absence of clear evidence as to when exactly formulin was added, it would not be safe to accept the evidence of the Food Inspector on the other aspects of the case particularly when the Public Analyst (an expert in the field) comes to the Court and clearly states that if there is a defect in the addition of formulin, the value of milk fat, total solid and protein may be affected, which are exactly the three items in this case found to be some extent efficient. We then have further significant evidence of the Food Inspector that the seal at the top of bottle Exh. A was incomplete and that the seal at the lower portion of the bottle Exh. A was broken and that the seal at the bottom of the bottle Exh. A was absolutely illegible. This being the quality of the Food Inspectors evidence and considering the said evidence in the light of the evidence of the Public Analyst as also in the light of the independent witness Rajendraprasad, the finding and the conclusion reached by the learned trial Magistrate acquitting the accused persons cannot be said to be liable to be interfered with by this Court. 6. In the result, this appeal fails and the same in dismissed. 7. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. -----