Judgment This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent. 2. P.W.1, Food Inspector attached to Villupuram Municipality took samples of milk from the respondent on 3.5.1982, at 9.45 a.m. while he was standing in front of Arignar Anna Arts College Hostel, after observing all formalities, for detection of cases under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. One such sample sent to the Public Analyst was found adulterated in the sense that the same was deficient in solid-not-fat to an extent of 34.1 per cent. 3. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram on consideration of the materials, found the respondent not guilty and acquitted him of the charge framed under the relevant provision of the Act, giving rise to this appeal by the State. 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would contend that the order of acquittal of the respondent by the Court below is perverse in the sense that reasons given in the judgment of the Court below are altogether untenable and therefore it is that the order of acquittal deserves to be reversed. The reasons given by the Court below for acquitting the respondent are three fold in number. They are: (1) Sec.13(2) notice had been served on the-res‘pondent after a delay of two days from the date of institution of the complaint against him. (2) The Food Inspector P.W.1, during the course of his evidence had not stated, the strength of the formalin he added to the sample for detection. (3) There is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would concede that the reasons given by the Court below for acquitting the respondent are patently perverse and the judgment of the Court below deserves to be reversed. But, he would however contend that the order of acquittal remains in force on and from 26.5.1984, and at this distance of time, it is not advisable to remand the case back to the Court below for fresh trial, when especially the order of acquittal could be maintained on the sole and lone point of admitted lack of evidence on the part of the prosecution to the effect that the sample of milk that was taken was not at all stirred or churned before taking the sample. If the sample of milk is not stirred or churned before taking the sample, by using a dipper or by pouring the milk from one can to another, then it cannot be stated that the sample so taken represented homogenous and representative one to lead to the correct test by analyst. In support of this contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would cite the decision reported in State by Public Prosecutor v. Ramachandran State by Public Prosecutor v. Ramachandran (1988)2 M.W.N. (Crl.) 29 The authority cited by the learned counsel for the respondent supports his contention in all fours. In this view, of the matter, the order of acquittal need not be disturbed and be allowed to continue. 6. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. B.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.