Judgment :- 1. Petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under S.2(ia)(a), S.2(ia)(c), S.2(ia)(m) S.7(i) read with R.44(b) and Appendix B.A11.01.11 in R.5 and S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The charge was that the sample of milk taken from the petitioner, was found to be adulterated. I do not propose to go into the facts because the case turns on a question of law, and counsel has not urged any other point. The Public Analyst found that the sample was adulterated. At the request of the petitioner a sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory and on Analysis it was found to be adulterated. There are however differences between the findings of the Public Analyst, and the Central Food Laboratory. 2. Counsel for petitioner submits that S.13(2)B has not been complied with. S.13(2)B of the Act requires that the court shall ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in clause.(b) of Sub-section (1) of S.11 are intact and the signature or thumb impression as the case may be are not tampered with, and that one of the parts of the sample under its own seal, should be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. According to counsel, this requirement has not been satisfied and the magistrate did not apply his mind to the prescriptions of the Section. Counsel is well founded in his submission. Proceedings of the court below show that no such compliance has been made. The endorsement on 25-3-1981 is: "Await certificate from Director C. P. Laboratory, Mysore. Bail granted to accused on his executing a bond for Rs.1000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum" Magistrate merely said 'await certificate from Director, Central Food Laboratory, Mysore'. It is not possible to discern whether he applied his mind to the requirements of S.13(2)B or whether he was aware of the requirements. The result of the analysis can be of great moment to the accused and to ensure that this right of the accused is not whittled down, law has made prescriptions in the shape of safeguards. Courts are expected to pay strict adherence to these. If the court is to make a farce of this, trial also will be equally farcial. Law in question is one of great rigour and the consequences of violation of law, are draconian indeed. Courts are expected to pay strict adherence to these. If the court is to make a farce of this, trial also will be equally farcial. Law in question is one of great rigour and the consequences of violation of law, are draconian indeed. It is the duty of the court to see that an accused person is not deprived of his liberty, one of the most cherished rights, except in accordance with law and with Sanction of law. If courts are to make such mindless exercise the right of the accused will be in jeopardy. At once, the enforcement of the law in the interest of public health will also suffer. In Food Inspector v. Abdulla (1986 KLT 1267) Pareed Pillay, J. has pointed out the injunctions of the Rule and the need for strict adherence. Apparently, this has not been adhered to in the instant case. 3. It is argued by counsel for respondent-Municipality that the certificate issued by the Central Food Laboratory would show that the seal was intact and the requirements of Law are satisfied. These are not matters left to that authority. Magisterial responsibility cannot be substituted. If such were to be the case the court will be abdicating its functions to the Analyst. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Kacheroo Mal (AIR 1976 SC 394) Supreme Court stated the law thus: "The report of the Public Analyst, including his opinion on this point, is per se evidence by virtue of S.13 of the Act. But this does not mean that this ipse dixit would be conclusive and binding on the court. To treat it so, would be to leave the determination of the guilt of the accused to the whims and fancies of the Public Analyst. The Act would not countenance such abdication of its judicial function by the court, leaving the case as it were to be tried by the Analyst" Whatever sanctity is attached to the report of the Analyst, is limited to areas committed to him as an expert. The Supreme Court has clearly indicated what the Report is intended to be, and what it is not intended to be. From the Notings in the Report, a compliance of R.13(2)B. cannot be presumed. The Magistrate must discharge his plain duty, in the manner indicated by the Rule. In the instant case, the requirements of law were violated. The Supreme Court has clearly indicated what the Report is intended to be, and what it is not intended to be. From the Notings in the Report, a compliance of R.13(2)B. cannot be presumed. The Magistrate must discharge his plain duty, in the manner indicated by the Rule. In the instant case, the requirements of law were violated. There is non-application of mind and the court cannot with any degree of fairness derive the satisfaction, that the requirements of law were met and that the accused was rightly convicted. In this view, the conviction entered by the courts below are set aside, and the accused is acquitted.