Judgment This appeal by the State is against the judgment in C.C.No. 211 of 1982 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, acquitting the accused who have been charged for offences punishable under Sec7(1)(a)(ii) read with Secs.l6(ia) (a), (b)(m) and (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The second respondent was running an ice factory under the name and style of Lakshmi Ice Factory at Thuvarakurichi. The first respondent is the Manager of that ice factory. On 23rd June, 1982 at about 7.15a.m. P.W.1, the Food Inspector attached to Marungapuri Panchayat Union, inspected the shop of the accused. He purchased 900 grams (30 packets) of organe ice fruits for Rs.1.50. He divided the sample so purchased into three equal parts and then sent one such sample to the Analyst who found that the sample contains 130 parts of saccharin per million parts. He then filed a complaint before the Magistrate. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found that formalin, a preservative was not added to the. sample and therefore there is violation of Rule 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and following a judgment of Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sewaram, 1979 Crl.L.J. 1463, acquitted the accused. The State is aggrieved and has filed this appeal. 4. There is no evidence as regards the contents of the ‘ice-fruit’. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that ice-fruit is also a milk product and therefore formalin, the preservative should have been added to the sample taken. Per contra, the Government Advocate, Mr.Kannappa Rajendran, contends that Rule 20 is only directory in nature, his next contention is that the Public Analyst says that the sample is in good condition and the non-addition of formalin will not be fatal to the prosecution case. The definition for ice-candy is found in Appendix-B under Paragraph A07.04.01. It runs thus: “ICE CANDY means the frozen ice produce which may contain fruit, fruit juices, cocoa, nuts, citric acid, permitted flavours and colours. It may also contain permitted stablizers and/or emulsifiers not exceeding O.5 per cent by weight. It shall contain sugar not less than 10 per cent by weight. It shall not contain any artificial sweetener.” A doubt arises whether this ice-fruit is also ice candy. In the report of the Analyst, Ex.P8, we find that artificial sweetener, namely, saccharin, has been added. There is no doubt, a violation. It shall contain sugar not less than 10 per cent by weight. It shall not contain any artificial sweetener.” A doubt arises whether this ice-fruit is also ice candy. In the report of the Analyst, Ex.P8, we find that artificial sweetener, namely, saccharin, has been added. There is no doubt, a violation. But then, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that formalin has not been added. Mr.Kannppa Rajendran contends that as ice-fruit is not a milk product, no formalin need be added. In State of Kerala v. Lakshmanan, 1979 Crl.L.J. 1463, the Kerala High Court held that icecandy includes ice-fruit. In State of Maharashtra v. Sewaram, 1973 Crl.L.J. 1730, the learned Judge of the Bombay High Court held that non-compliance of the said rule is a position altogether different from a substantial compliance of the said rule. In other words, what the learned Judge meant is, the fact that Rule 20 is directory in nature does not necessarily mean that a total breach thereof is permitted. That was a case relating to ice-candy. As ice candy includes ice-fruit, the preservative, formalin, should have been added to the sample of ice-fruit under Rule 20. Here, there is total noncompliance of the Rule by the Food Inspector. That is not permitted under Rule 20. It is in that view that the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. I am of the view that the order of acquittal is correct. Even if two views are possible, the High Court should be slow in reversing the judgment of acquittal. The appeal fails and is dismissed.