Order This appeal filed by the Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation arises from a judgment of the Court of Sessions, Kozhikode, acquitting the first accused in S.T.C.No 91 of 1977 of an offence punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter called the Act. 2. On a complaint filed by the Food Inspector (P.W. 1) the respondent herein who was the first accused along with another, the second accused, were tried on the allegation that the respondent sold 675 ml. of cow milk which belonged to the second accused which was, on analysis, found to be adulterated. The plea of the respondent was one of denial. 3. The trial Court on a consideration of the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution found the respondent guilty of the offence with which he was charged, convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. The second accused was acquitted. 4. On appeal filed by the respondent challenging his conviction and sentence before the Court of Session, Kozhikode, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the only ground that the relevant notification appointing the Local (Health) Authority has not been produced and proved by the prosecution. 5. This order of acquittal is strongly assailed by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant, who submitted that on the very face of it this order is wrong and illegal and is against the express provisions in section 56 and 57 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Counsel contended that the notification appointing the Corporation Health Officer as Local (Health) Authority under section 2 ( viii) is a notification which can be taken judicial notice of by the Court under section 57 and therefore by virtue of section 56 of the Evidence Act there was no necessity to prove the same. A notification No. 24096/G-3/76/H.D. dated 10th April, 1976 issued by the Government of Kerala appointing the Health Officers of the Corporations in the State as Local (Health) Authority has been published in the Kerala Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 10th April, 1976. A notification No. 24096/G-3/76/H.D. dated 10th April, 1976 issued by the Government of Kerala appointing the Health Officers of the Corporations in the State as Local (Health) Authority has been published in the Kerala Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 10th April, 1976. The notification in question squarely falls under section 57 (7) of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore this is a notification which ought to have been taken judicial notice of by the Court and there was no necessity of the same being proved under the Evidence Act. Under section 56 of the Evidence Act, no fact of which the Court can take judicial notice need be proved. If the court entertained any doubt on the matter, it should have resorted to the last two paragraphs of section 57 of the Evidence Act. In such a case it was its duty to resort for its aid to appropriate books or documents of reference (in this case the Official Gazette containing the relevant notification) or to call upon the complainant to produce the same. It is only after being so called upon to produce the appropriate book or the document of reference and if the complainant fails to produce the book of the document that the Court can refuse to take judicial notice. In the instant case, it was without resorting to the last paragraphs or the closing words in section 57 that the appellate Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to proved the notification in question. 6. The order of acquittal of the respondent on the ground mentioned by the appellate Court cannot therefore be sustained and has to be interfered with. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that besides this point, the accused had raised many other points in support of his defence; that some of these have been considered by the appellate Court and therefore it is only just and proper that the case should be sent back to the appellate Court for disposal afresh after hearing both sides. The Counsel for the appellant has no objection to this course. 7. The Counsel for the appellant has no objection to this course. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the acquittal of the respondent is set aside and the Court of Session, Kozhikode, is directed to restore Cr.A.No. 125 of 1977 to its file and dispose of the same according to law and in the light of this judgment, after giving an opportunity to both sides to present their respective contentions in the appeal. M.C.M. ----- Appeal allowed.