S. M. SONI, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT orig. complainant has by this appeal challenged the order of acquittal dated 13. 2. 84 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalol in Criminal Case no. 343 of 1974. ( 2 ) COMPLAINANT purchased a sample of vanaspati at about 11. 15, A. M. on 27. 8. 73 from accused no. 13, who was sitting in the shop of accused no. 12. After duly observing the necessary formalities of taking sample, the same was sent to Public Analyst at Baroda, who, in his report dated 26. 9. 73 found that the sample does not conform to the standards laid down under Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (Rules for short ). The complainant then placed that report before the concerned authority, seeking necessary sanction to prosecute the accused and on obtaining necessary sanction, criminal complaint was filed against the accused. Accused no. 12 had purchased the said sample from accused no. 11, who had purchased the same from accused no. 6, who has in turn purchased the same from accused no. 1. Accused nos. 2,3,4 and 5 are the office-bearers of accused no. 1 (accused no. 4 was the Manager of accused no. 1-company. However, he has died pending trial ). Accused nos. 7 and 8 are the partner and manager respectively of accused no. 6 and accused nos. 9 and 10 are the persons who have also purchased vegetable ghee from accused no. 6. Separate cases were filed against accused nos. 9 and 10. The complainant examined necessary witnesses and after preliminary enquiry, on being satisfied that there is material to frame charge against the accused, the learned Magistrate framed the charge against the accused on 10. 10. 82 (Ex. 136 ). In the charge, it is specifically mentioned that the sample purchased from the accused is not as per specification inasmuch as on analysis of the same, the mineral oil is found. Accused nos. 1, 6 and 11 and other concerned accused were also charged in view of their sale without warranty. On completion of the evidence on the part of the complainant, plea of the accused of both of the learned Advocates for the prosectuion as well as the defence, recorded the order of acquittal. Against the order of acquittal, present appeal has been filed. ( 3 ) ). Learned Counsel Mr. On completion of the evidence on the part of the complainant, plea of the accused of both of the learned Advocates for the prosectuion as well as the defence, recorded the order of acquittal. Against the order of acquittal, present appeal has been filed. ( 3 ) ). Learned Counsel Mr. M. I. Patel appearing for the applellant has challenged this order of acquittal on the ground firstly that the learned Magistrate has erred in reading the evidence of Boman and concluding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the sample vanaspati taken from the accused did not conform to the standards specified, more particularly on the question of unsaponifiable of the standard prescribed, and, secondly that Holdes test being found positive, the sample contained mineral oil, which is prohibited in edible oils as provided in clause 17 of the Rules, as the vanaspati is refined edible oil or oils subjected to a process of hydrogenation in any form. Mr. Patel, therefore, contended that even in vanaspati if mineral oil is found present, then the sample is not as per the standard specified. ( 4 ) WE will first deal with specification pertaining to unsaponifiable matter. A. 19 of Appendix B of the Rules provides for the standard of quality of vanaspati, which is admittedly an article of food. It reads as under:- a. 19. Vanaspati means any refined edible vegetable oil or oils, subjected to a process of hydrogenation in any form. It shall be prepared by hydrogenation from groundnut oil, cotton seed oil and sesame oil or mixtures thereof or any other harmless vegetable oils allowed by the Government for the purpose. It shall confirm to the standards specified below: (I) It shall not contain any harmful colouring, flavouring or any other matter deleterious to health. (II) No colour shall be added to hydrogenated vegetable oil unless so authorised by Government, but in no event any colour resembling the colour of ghee shall be added. (III) If any flavour is used, it shall be distinct from that of ghee, in accordance with a list of permissible flavours and in such quantities as may be prescribed by the Government:provided that diacetyl to the extent of not more than 4. 0 p. p. m. may be added to vanaspati exclusively meant for consumption by the Armed forces. (IV) It shall not have moisture exceeding 0. 25 per cent. 0 p. p. m. may be added to vanaspati exclusively meant for consumption by the Armed forces. (IV) It shall not have moisture exceeding 0. 25 per cent. (V) The melting point as determined by the capillary slip method shall be from 31 C to 37 C both inclusive. (VI) The Butyro-refractometer rreading at 40 C shall not be less than 48. (VII) It shall not have unsaponifiable matter exceeding 1. 25 per cent. (VIII) It shall not have free fatty acids (calculated as oleic acid) exceeding 0. 25 per cent. (IX) The product on melting shall be clear in appearance and shall be free from staleness and rancidity, and pleasant to test and smell. (X) It shall contain raw or refined sesame (til) oil not less than 5 per cent, by weight, but sufficient so that when the vanaspati is mixed with refined groundnut oil in the proportion 20 : 80, the red colour produced by the Baudouin test shall not be lighter than 2. 0 red units in a 1 cm. Cell on a Lovibond scale. (XI) It shall contain not less than (25 I. U. of synthetic vitamine a per gram ). (XII) No antioxidant, synergist emulsifier or any other such substance shall be added to it except with the prior sanction of the Government. According to the prosecution, as the sample did not conforrm with the specification with respect to unsaponifiable matter as well as mineral oil, it does not conform to the standards and, therefore, it is an adulterated one. To prove this aspect, the prosecution has first relied on the report of the public Analyst (Ex. 61), wherein he had declared the result of analysis, particularly for the purpose of unsaponifiable matters as under:- unsaponifiable matter-1. 4% as per the specification, unsaponifiable matter should not exceed 1. 25% and as the unsaponifiable matter has exceeded 1. 25%, the sample is not as per the specification and is adulterated one. Mr. Ganatra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents nos. 3 and 4, has contended before me that the reading arrived at by the Public Analyst is not according to the specified method of calculating the reading for unsaponifiable matter. 25%, the sample is not as per the specification and is adulterated one. Mr. Ganatra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents nos. 3 and 4, has contended before me that the reading arrived at by the Public Analyst is not according to the specified method of calculating the reading for unsaponifiable matter. He has drawn the attention of this court to Manual of Methods of Tests and Analysis for Food, which is published by the Director General of health Services, Ministry of Health, Family Planning and Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi. In the Preface, it is stated that these methods of tests having been recommended by the Sub-Committee and approved by the Central Committee for food standards are published for the guidance of all concerned and that this Manual is published with a view to form uniformity amongst the analysis in their method of analysis. It is observed that: the Analysts as well as food technologists and analysts employed in various organisations have been using various method of tests for the determination of different components whose limits have been laid down under these Rules. As the methods adopted by Analysts are different, the results obtained may some times differ even in the case of same food product analysed at different food laboratories. The Central Committee for Food Standards considered this subject in detail and desired that methods of tests as available with the various institutions like Indian Standards Institution, Directorate of Marketing and Inspection, etc. be aligned and published for the guidance of Public analysts and other analytical chemicsts so as to have a uniformity in the reports. Under this Manual, method for determination of unsaponifiable matter is described at page 14. Relevant for our purpose will be the general part of it ande conclusion part of it. General part reads as under:- the material is completely saponified with alcoholic potasium hydroxide solution and extracted with petroleum ether. The petroleum ether extract is washed with acueus alcohol and then again with water. The washed ether extract is evaporated and the residue weighed. Unsaponifiable matter is this residue minus the fatty acid present in it, which is determined by titration with sodium hydroxide solution in alcoholic medium. From this, it appears that insaponifiable matter, is a residue, after the deduction of the weight of fatty acid contained thereon. This is made clear by the method of calculation. Unsaponifiable matter is this residue minus the fatty acid present in it, which is determined by titration with sodium hydroxide solution in alcoholic medium. From this, it appears that insaponifiable matter, is a residue, after the deduction of the weight of fatty acid contained thereon. This is made clear by the method of calculation. Method of calculation of unsaponifiable matter formula is: percent by weight = 100 (A-B)/w where a=weight in g of the residue b=weight in g of the fatty acids in the extract and w=weight in g. Of the material taken for the test ( 5 ) ). Therefore, to conform with the standard prescribed in A. 19 of Appendix B of the Rules when it is provided that it shall not have insaponifiable matter exceeding 1. 25%, that matter reading must be after deducting the weight in gram of fatty acid. If the reading arrived at by the Public analyst, which is 1. 40%, is proved to be after deduction of fatty acid, then it can be said to be a reading for the purpose of A. 19 of Appendix B of the Rules. The question, therefore, is whether the reading arrived at by the public analyst is after deducting the weight in gram of fagtty acid or not. Mr. Ganatra, learned counsel, has after deducting the weight in gram of fatty acid or not. Mr. Ganatra, learned counsel, has vehemently contended before this court that Mr. Boman, who is examined by the prosecution before the court, has in terms stated that reading referred to in his report is without deducting the weight of fatty acid in gram. In his report, weight of fatty acid is shown to be 0. 25%. If this reading of the fatty acid is deducted from the reading of unsaponifiable matter, which is 1. 40% then according to the Manual and in his view, the correct reading of unsaponifiable matter is 1. 15% only and it is in compliance with the specification prescribed under the Rules. The question, therefore, is whether percentage of weight of fatty acid is deducted from the percentage reading of unsaponifiable matter or not. There is an evidence of Mr. Boman stating that the same is not deducted. In paragraphs 29 and 34 of his evidence, he has stated as under: -. . . . The question, therefore, is whether percentage of weight of fatty acid is deducted from the percentage reading of unsaponifiable matter or not. There is an evidence of Mr. Boman stating that the same is not deducted. In paragraphs 29 and 34 of his evidence, he has stated as under: -. . . . In my report, correction for free fatty acid acid has not been done as can be seen from record at Ex. 163. It is true that F. F. A. (free fatty acid) has to be determined and substracted from the weight of U. M. (Unsaponifiable matter) and thereafter the percentage has to be worked out. It is true that if correction for F. F. A. has been done, the final result which has been certified could be less than 1. 40%. 34. . . Since Mr. Bhagat has not performed the test of U. M. upto the stage of successive constant weight as well as since he has not deducted F. F. A. from U. M. , the result of U. M. certified as 1. 40% does not appear to be correct. Now, when the Public Analyst himself has deposed on oath that his reading arrived at 1. 40% does not appear to be correct, it is hazarduous to rely on such reading and to hold that the sample is not as per the specification so far as Unsaponifiable matter is concerned. When the Public analyst has specifically stated that the result of unsaponifiable matter certified as 1. 40% does not appear to be correct, is nothing wrong on the part of the learned Magistrate if he has not relied upon the same and held that so far as that part of adulteration is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove the same. ( 6 ) THE analyst has in his report also found that Holdes test for mineral oil is found positive. Mr. Patel, learned Counsel for the appellant contended before this court that the find of Holdes test to be positive proves that the sample contained mineral oil and addition of mineral oil is prohibited in the specification of edible oils. Mr. Patel contended that in A-17 of Appendix B of the Rules, specification of edible oils is prescribed. He took this court to specification of edible oils at A-17. 01 to A-17. 16, except A. 17. 14. Mr. Patel contended that in A-17 of Appendix B of the Rules, specification of edible oils is prescribed. He took this court to specification of edible oils at A-17. 01 to A-17. 16, except A. 17. 14. The specification provides that the oil shall be free from added mineral oil along with other substance also. In substance, the edible oil should be free from mineral oil. Mr. Patel contended that Holdes test is for deciding whether mineral oil is present or not. When I called upon Mr. Patel to show as to from where he says that Holdes test is only for the purpose of deciding mineral oils, he was not able to show the same from any Book. It is true that Holdes tests are for deciding hydrocarbons and is also equally true that mineral oil is a hydrocarbons. Mr. Patel contended that different types of hydrocarbons other than mineral oil are there and in the presence of other hydrocarrbons, mineral oil will not show the Holdes test to be positive one. This contention of Mr. Patel is not supported or substantiated by either any book on chemistry or any other law book. On the contrary his own witness Mr. Boman stated in para 20 of his deposition that: it is true that U. M. is the natural constituent of every edible oil as well as vanaspati. All edible oils are tri-glycerides of fatty acid. U. M. means that it does not form soap. U. M. consists of hydro-carbons, higher alcopoles, sterols as well as aliphatic Alcohol. Hydrocarbon in science means mineral matter in common language. It is true that Holdes test is a test for hydrocarbon. Mr. Boman, witness for the prosecution, has to his credit degrees of M. Sc. , M. S. (U. S. A.), Ph. D. He was also an Associate of Royal Institute of Chemistry in London. He has also carried out Research work and have published technical papers. This I am stating to show that Mr. Boman is not a simple technician or a Chemist for the purpose of working in the office of the Public Analyst. He is a person duly qualified in his subject. From the evidence of Mr. He has also carried out Research work and have published technical papers. This I am stating to show that Mr. Boman is not a simple technician or a Chemist for the purpose of working in the office of the Public Analyst. He is a person duly qualified in his subject. From the evidence of Mr. Boman, it is clear that mineral matter, which he has further clarified to be a mineral oil, is known as hydrocarbon in the language of Science and he has stated that Holdes test is for deciding presence of hydrocarbon. Mr. Patel, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended before this court that Holdes test will be positive if there is presence of mineral oil in the sample and mineral oil means petroleum or one of its distillation products as per Concise Oxford dictionary, 1990 Edition at page 754. As per Websters new Dictionary and Thesaurus, 1989 edition, mineral oil means an oil of mineral origin, especially refined petroleum oil. Mr. Boman has admitted in his evidence that hydrocarbon in science means mineral matter in common language. AS per the dictionary meaning, mineral oil means an oil of mineral origin, but the chemical name of this oil is hydrocarbon. Mr. Patel, learned counsel, contended that Holdes test in general is a test of mineral oil and not for hydrocarbon. When Mr. Boman, their own witness, has stated that Holdes test is a test for hydrocarbon, how can it be said that Holdes test is only for mineral oil and for no other hydrocarbons? Mr. Boman has stated that unsaponifiable matter consists of hydrocarbons, higher alcoholes, sterols as well as aliphatic alcohole. Thus, it can be said that in unsaponifiable matter, there are hydrocarbons, higher alcoholes, sterols as well as aliphtic alcohole. If the prosecution wanted to prove that the sample contained only mineral oil as prohibited under the Rules, then it was equally the duty of the prosecution to establish and show that other contents like higher alcoholes, sterols as well as aliphatic alchole were absent and that Holdes test only showed the presence of hydrocarbon, which means mineral oil only. In my opinion, prosecution has not been able to establish this fact that in unsaponifiable matter, there were no other substances except hydrocarbons. It is deposed by Mr. Boman that hydrocarbon makes unsaponifiable matter and whenever hydrocarbon is present, Holdes test will be positive one. Mr. In my opinion, prosecution has not been able to establish this fact that in unsaponifiable matter, there were no other substances except hydrocarbons. It is deposed by Mr. Boman that hydrocarbon makes unsaponifiable matter and whenever hydrocarbon is present, Holdes test will be positive one. Mr. Boman has deposed that it is true that when under Rule A. 19 the limit for unsaponifiable matter is fixed at 1. 25%, laws allows hydrocarbon or mineral oil upto 1. 25%. In para 31, he has further deposed that If is true that even when the unsaponifiable matter is within the prescribed limit of 1. 25%, the Holdes test could be positive. This suggests that whenever unsaponifiable matter is present and a Holdes test is carried out, the Holdes test could be positive. He has further stated in para 39 that I agree that if U. M. would have been within the prescribed limit of 1. 25%, I would not have certified the sample as not conforming to the standards even if Holdes test would be positive. This suggests that find of Holdes test to be positive does not necessarily mean the presence of mineral oils, because Mr. Boman would never say that though the addition of mineral oil is prohibited and if Holdes test is positive only if mineral oil is present, then despite the presence of mineral oil, it will be surprising that he will say that he will certify it to be in conformity with the standards. Thus, simply because Holdes test is positive by itself does not necessarily lead to an inference of presence of mineral oil. It only suggests that presence of hydrocarbons, which may be in unsaponifiable matter. Thus, I do not find any substance in the say of the learned counsel. Mr. Patel that simply become Holdes test is positive, the sample is not in conformity with the specification prescribed in A-19 of Appendix B of the Rules. Learned Magistrate has arrived at the conclusion that the sample is not found to be adulterated and I do not find any reason to interfere with that finding. ( 7 ) ). As the sample is not found to be adulterated or proved to be adulterated in view of the above two referred tests, I do not propose to enter into any other contention raised by Mr. Patel. ( 7 ) ). As the sample is not found to be adulterated or proved to be adulterated in view of the above two referred tests, I do not propose to enter into any other contention raised by Mr. Patel. The prosecution was launched against the accused on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst that the sample taken was not as per the specification prescribed. From the evidence of Mr. Boman it is clear that certain aspects of analysis for the purpose of calculation were not taken into consideration and the reading as to unsaponifiable matter was arrived at incorrectly. If alleged deduction of fatty acid would have been given credit in arriving at the calculation of unsaponifiable matter, the only finding which would remained against the accused was the Holdes test and in view of the admission of Mr. Boman before the court that if reading of unsaponifiable matter would have been less than 1. 25% he would not have failed the sample even if the Holdes test was found positive this finding also would not have remained. If this situation would have been there, which has ultimately found by the evidence of Mr. Boman, then Mr. Boman might not have given the certificate to the effect that the sample failed and there would not have been any prosecution of the accused persons. With this observation and in view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate. Hence the appeal fails and is dismissed. .