JUDGMENT Oza, J. - 1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant against the acquittal of the respondent from a charge under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The respondent was convicted for the alleged offence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain and sentenced to imprisonment for nine months and fine of Rs 1,000 On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled against him and therefore this appeal has been preferred after obtaining leave. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Court below was wrong in acquitting the respondent on the bas s of the statement of the public analyst Shri Saxena who was examined before the trial Court. Learned counsel contended that his report which is an evidence under section 13 of the Act should have been considered specially because according to the learned counsel, this witness (public analyst) admitted in his statement that he does not remember what procedure or test he applied in the case but the grievance made by the learned counse1 was that in further cross-examination he admitted that he did not perform the analysis properly and that he committed an error. He therefore contended, that the learned Court below was not right in acquitting the respondent on the basis of such a statement made by the public analyst. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that where the evidence of the public analyst itself discloses that he did not perform all the tests which should have been performed and where he himself admits that because he did not perform the tests fully the result of his analysis is affected and he has committed this error, in face of this evidence and the result mentioned in the report of the public analyst which could not be read in evidence as required under section 13, the learned Court below was right in acquitting the respondent. 4. The report of the public analyst which is Ex. P-9 shows that the total ash and insoluble ash was above the standard and this was the reason why the public analyst opined that the sample of Dhaniya i.e., corriander powder was below the standard. 4. The report of the public analyst which is Ex. P-9 shows that the total ash and insoluble ash was above the standard and this was the reason why the public analyst opined that the sample of Dhaniya i.e., corriander powder was below the standard. The public analyst in his statement admitted that in order to determine the total ash the process of eliminating carbon has to be repeated and this has to be repeated till the constant weight comes as according to him it is only after the carbon is removed the total ash could be determined. He also admitted that he only repeated this test twice and did not bother about the effect and it is because he did not repeat the test, the result may be erroneous. It is also admitted that insoluble ash will always depend upon the total ash determined. Under these circumstances the evidence of the public analyst itself shows that he did not perform the test as required and thereby has committed an error which has resulted in an erroneous result. Apparently therefore the report of the public analyst according to his own evidence is erroneous and on that basis no conviction could be based. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that under section 13 of the Act the report of the public analyst could be read in evidence for the facts stated therein and therefore he wanted to contend that inspite of the evidence given by the public analyst his report should be accepted. 5. Section 13 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides that: "The public analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis." Clause (5) of this section provides that any document purporting to be a report signed by the public analyst shall be read in evidence for the facts stated therein if it has not been superseded under clause (3) by a report of the Central Food Laboratory. Learned counsel therefore contended that the report of the public analyst is not superseded by the report of the Central Food Laboratory and therefore the report itself should have been considered. 6. Learned counsel therefore contended that the report of the public analyst is not superseded by the report of the Central Food Laboratory and therefore the report itself should have been considered. 6. Section 45 of the Evidence Act provides: "When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or science or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts." It is therefore clear that in matters like this the opinion of an expert could always be considered. It also cannot be disputed that the opinion could only be considered in evidence when the expert is examined in the Court and he has given reasons for his opinion. Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is an exception to this rule of evidence which is specially incorporated in the Act. It therefore only lays down that if the public analyst is not examined then the report itself could be read in evidence for the facts stated therein under certain circumstances as contemplated in this section but it cannot be disputed that if the public analyst is examined as a witness then his evidence has to be accepted as evidence. Apparently the evidence given by the expert i.e. Shri Saxena in this case clearly establishes that he did not fully perform the tests as were necessary and which has ultimately resulted in the result which he accepts to be erroneous. It could not be said that on the basis of this result which was on record the respondent could be convicted. Apparently under section 13 the report could only be read in evidence where the public analyst has not been examined but the public analyst has been examined in this case and therefore his evidence coupled with the report alone could be considered in the evidence. Under these circumstances the learned Court below was right in holding that the public analyst has not been able to prove that the sample of corriander taken from the respondent was below standard. 7. Under these circumstances the learned Court below was right in holding that the public analyst has not been able to prove that the sample of corriander taken from the respondent was below standard. 7. The learned Court below after having considered all the material and the evidence in the case carne to the conclusion and the conclusion so arrived at by the learned Court below could not be said to be such which reasonably could not be arrived at. This is an appeal against acquittal and therefore under these circumstances I see no reason to entertain this appeal. 8. The appeal is therefore dismissed. The acquittal of the respondent is maintained.