JUDGMENT 1. - Accused Nanak Ram son of Veerumal was tried by Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kota City (South) for selling adulterated Asafoetida (Hing) on March 30, 1974. The purchased quantity of Asafoetida (Hing) was divided into three equal parts, one of which was sent to the Public Analyst while the third one was kept by the Food Inspector and the second one was given to the accused. After receiving the report from the Public Analyst Ex. P/6, sanction was obtained and a complaint was filed. After recording the evidence the petitioner was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (to be referred to hereinafter as the Act) to six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. The appeal filed by the petitioner met with partial success. Learned Judge maintained the conviction, but reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 2, 500/- and the substantive sentence of imprisonment was set aside. 2. Not being satisfied with the judgments of the two courts below, the petitioner has come up in revision. 3. The petitioner does not contest the fact that the sample was duly taken from his shop, nor the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta produced by him in defence. A perusal of the report shows that the article which formed the subject matter of dispute was Asafoetida (Hing) and was adulterated one. Learned counsel has urged before me that Rule A. O4 of Appendix-B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 before the amendment was in the following terms:- "A. O4. Asafoetida of Hing means the oleogum resin obtained from the rhizome and root of Ferula alliaces, Ferula rubricaulis and other species of Ferula. It shall contain no sand, gravel or other foreign mineral matter, colophony resin, galbonum resin, aumoniacum resin or any other foreign resin. The ash content shall not exceed 15 per cent of its weight ; and the alcoholic extract (with 90 per cent alcohol) shall be not less than 25 per cent. Compounded Asafoetida or Bandhani Hing is composed of one or more varieties of Asafoetida (Irani and/or Pathani Hing) gum arabic and wheat and/or rice flour. It shall not contain sand, gravel or other foreign mineral matter colophony resin, galbonum resin, ammoniacum resin or any other foreign resin. Compounded Asafoetida or Bandhani Hing is composed of one or more varieties of Asafoetida (Irani and/or Pathani Hing) gum arabic and wheat and/or rice flour. It shall not contain sand, gravel or other foreign mineral matter colophony resin, galbonum resin, ammoniacum resin or any other foreign resin. The ash content shall not exceed 10 per cent of its weight and the alcoholic extract (with 90 per cent alcohol) shall not be less than 10 per cent. Use of coal tar dyes or mineral pigment is prohibited." 4. This rule was later on substituted by a new rule vide notification No GSR 1256 dated August 17, 1967, wherein the words "It shall contain no sand, gravel or other foreign mineral matter" have been omitted. He has tried to place before me certain books relating to inorganic chemistry and has further contended that his client moved an application before the learned Trial Court for summoning the Director of Central Food Laboratory and learned Magistrate was pleased to order on July 24 1975 that the Director be summoned to make a statement in the Court, provided the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs. 500/- towards his expenses. Learned counsel frankly admits that his counter part appearing in the trial court made a mistake in not depositing that amount and now he is ready to deposit the amount. He had also made similar request before the appellate court on August 4, 1976 and as such it would be in the interest of justice to call him now or remand the case to the lower court for recording additional evidence. His main contention is that in the certificate given by the Director of Central Food Laboratory the item mentioned as extraneous chalk is included in ash insolid and it can be clarified only by the statement of the person who has analysed the material. His main contention is that in the certificate given by the Director of Central Food Laboratory the item mentioned as extraneous chalk is included in ash insolid and it can be clarified only by the statement of the person who has analysed the material. The practice of showing technical books in the High Court has not been appreciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Das and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 S.C. 589 , wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court while discussing the evidence of the medical witness have observed as under:- "Where the opinions of authors were neither shown to have been given in regard to circumstances exactly similar to those in the particular case before Court nor were they put to the medical witness it is not a satisfactory way of disposing of the evidence of the witness to discredit it on the ground that the doctor was a comparatively young man and his statements did not accord with the opinions expressed in the books." 5. Taking a conspectus of the circumstances of the case I am of the view that it would meet the ends of justice that if an opportunity is provided now to the petitioner to examine the Director, Central Food Laboratory on his own expenses in the lower Court.The net result of the above discussion is that the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts are set aside. The case is remanded back to the trial Court for giving an opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the expenses for calling the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta and seek the necessary clarification whats over he wants regarding the report given by him. It will be open to the Public Prosecutor to cross-examine the witness and present any witness if he so likes. Thereafter learned Magistrate will decide the case afresh keeping in view the observations made by this Court in Municipal Council, Jaipur v. Sita Ram, 1976 R.L.W. 385 as well as Champalal v. State, 1976 R.L.W. 514 . The revision is disposed of as indicated above. The petitioner is directed to present himself before the concerned court on April 18, 1979 and as the case is an old one, learned Magistrate will give priority to this case and decide it as early as possible.Order accordingly. *******