Judgment : Against the acquittal of the respondent by the trial Court, who was charged under sections 7 and 16 (1) read with section 2(i-a)(a) and (m) of Central Act XXXVII of 1954, the State has preferred the above appeal. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: P.W. 1 the Food Inspector of Anaimalai Panchayat, on 20th August, 1978, at about 3-15 p.m. went to the shop of the respondent situated at No. 3|87, B. Uppu Kinar Street, Peddanaickanur, served Form VI notice Exhibit P-1 to the respondent and purchased 600 grams of ‘Mochi Paruppu’ for Rs. 2-30 from the respondent under cash receipt, Exhibit P-2. He then divided the sample into three equal parts, put them in three clean empty and dry bottles, and sent one bottle to the Public Analyst and two bottles to the Local HealthAuthority. The Public Analyst, in his report Exhibit P-4, opined that the sample contains damaged grains in excess to the extent of 66%. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, the respondent was charged under the aforesaid sections. 3. When the respondent was questioned by the trial Court, he denied the offence. 4. The trial Court, on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, acquitted the respondent on the ground that no preservative was added to the sample sent for analysis, that the air inside the bottle was not expelled completely by evacuation, that the possibility of the sample getting damaged by fungus is not ruled out and that the Public Analyst was not examined . It is against this acquittal of the respondent by the trial Court, the State has come forward with this appeal. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor contends before me, that the findings of the trial Court are erroneous and are not according to law. He contends that the preservative shall be added only to certain food articles such as milk and not to Mochai Paruppu. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor contends before me, that the findings of the trial Court are erroneous and are not according to law. He contends that the preservative shall be added only to certain food articles such as milk and not to Mochai Paruppu. He further contends that the trial Court erred in acquitting the respondent and ought to have considered the evidence of the Food Inspector, P.W. 1, who has deposed that he had taken the sample in clean, dry bottles and that, they have been sealed air tight, without any possibility for moisture to get inside and that the report of the Public Analyst Exhibit P-4 fortifies to the effect that the sample was in a fit condition for analysis and, therefore, the findings of the trial Court that the sample getting spoiled by fungus does not arise, are erroneous. 6. There is some substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor. The evidence of P.W. 1 is clear that the sample purchased from the respondent was put into three clean, dry and empty bottles and that they were sealed and sent to the Public Analyst and to the Local Health Authority. Therefore, it cannot be said that there were bubbles in the bottle or that the sample would have been spoilt by fungus before it was analysed. If the sample was not in a fit condition for analysis, the Public Analyst would have brought it to the notice of the Local Health Authority. On the other hand, it is clearly stated in the report of the Public Analyst that the sample was in a fit condition for analysis. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the reasonings of the trial Court are unsound and they have to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. 7. But, on going through the entire records and on its careful perusal I find that the acquittal of the respondent has to be sustained on a different ground. P.W. 1 took the sample on 20th August, 1978, from the respondent for sending it for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst shows that the Public Analyst received the sample for analysis on 25th August, 1978, that is, on the fifth day of the taking of the sample. P.W. 1 took the sample on 20th August, 1978, from the respondent for sending it for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst shows that the Public Analyst received the sample for analysis on 25th August, 1978, that is, on the fifth day of the taking of the sample. According to section 11 (3) of the Act, it is obligatory on the part of the Food Inspector to send the sample of food article taken by him for analysis on the next working day itself. The section provides that the Food Inspector shall send the sample of the article of food or adulterant or both, as the case may be, by the immediately succeeding working day, to the Public Analyst for the local area concerned. In the instant case, I find that P.W. 1 has not followed the provision of section 11 (3) of Central Act XXXVII of 1954, which is mandatory. P.W. 1 has not deposed nor has adduced any evidence whatsoever, to explain as to why the sample taken by him from the respondent on 20th August, 1978, was received by the Public Analyst on 25th August, 1978. It is likely that there might have been intervening holidays or unavoidable circumstances by which the sample of article could not be sent by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst next day, but that requires proper and convincing explanation from the Food Inspector as to why there was a delay in sending the sample to the Public Analyst. In the absence of any evidence in this regard, the Court is left only with the report of the Public Analyst to find out as to when and on what date the sample was received by him, from the Food Inspector. It is on this ground and in view of the violation of section 11 (3) of Central Act XXXVII of 1954 by the prosecuting agency, I am of the view that the acquittal of the respondent has to be sustained. The criminal appeal filed by the State is accordingly dismissed and the acquittal of the respondent is sustained.