Judgment : This appeal is by the State through the Food Inspector, Perambalur. The respondent-accused stood charged under Secs.7(1) and 16(a)(i) read with Sec.2(1a)(a)(b)(c) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution against the accused is that the Food Inspector inspected the shop of the accused on 28. 1984 at 4.00 p.m. and he took sample of turmeric powder kept there for sale and on an analysis of the same it was found to be adulterated and therefore the accused is liable to be convicted and sentenced under the abovesaid sections. 3. The accused denied the charge. The trial court found certain defects in the prosecution case and therefore it held that the case against the accused has not been proved satisfactorily beyond reasonable doubt. Hence it acquitted the accused. 4. Now in the appeal it is contended that the judgment of the court below is erroneous. Upon reading the judgment I find that the court below has found that for two reasons the prosecution case is defective. One is that the Public Analyst has received the sample on 28. 1984 and he has sent his report in Form No.III to the Local Health Authority only on 29. 1984 and during the 29 days in between the said two dates it is not known what all happened. The other is that while the sample has been taken on 28. 1984 the Public Analyst has received the sample only on 28. 1984. This show a delay in sending the sample. 5. Now regarding the abovesaid first defect stated by the court below, the learned Government Advocate submits that the law does not require the Public Analyst or the Food Inspector to say what all happened during the days the sample was with the Public Analyst. I think there is much force in this submission. The law only requires under Rule 7(3) of the Rules framed under the Act, that, “The public analyst shall, within a period of 40 days from the receipt of any sample for analysis and by registered post or by hand, to the local authority a report of the result of such analysis in Form III”. The law only requires under Rule 7(3) of the Rules framed under the Act, that, “The public analyst shall, within a period of 40 days from the receipt of any sample for analysis and by registered post or by hand, to the local authority a report of the result of such analysis in Form III”. Therefore, there is no merit in the observation of the lower court that it has not been stated as to what has happened during the said 29 days when the sample was with the analyst. 6. Coming to the next thing pointed out by the court below has another defect, I think there is some merit in it. As per Sec.11(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the Food Inspector shall send the sample taken to the analyst by the immediately succeeding working day. In this ease, the sample was taken on 28. 1984, but the sample was receiving by the Public Analyst on 28. 1984. There is absolutely no evidence as to on what date the sample was sent by the Food Inspector to the Analyst. It is possible that the sample has not been sent to the Analyst by the next working day as required under Sec.ll(3) of the Act. This shows that there is a defect in the prosecution case. In this view of the matter, the appeal cannot be allowed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.