Judgment : This criminal appeal is by the State against an order of acquittal passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettypalayam in a case in which the accused was charged under Secs.7 and 16(1) read with Sec.2(ia)(a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that when P.W.1 Food Inspector purchased 660 ml. of milk from the accused out of 41/2 litres of buffalo milk which the accused was having for sale. Then P.W.1 divided the same into three parts and observing all the requirements under the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Food Adulteration Act, sent one sample for chemical analysis and sent the other two samples to the local health authority. After the result of the analysis came, on finding therefrom that the milk was adulterated, P.W.1 filed the charge sheet. 3. The accused denied the charge. 4. The trial court acquitted the accused only on one ground, i.e. according to the trial court, the Food Inspector shall add the preservative ‘formalin’ to the sample, and he has stated that he added formalin but he has not stated that "a liquid containing about 40 per cent of formal dehyde in acqueous solution in the proposition of 30 (0.1. ml (two drops) for 25 ml. or 25 grams) (1) as it is stated in Rule 20, and therefore he has not complied with the requirement of Rule 20 and hence, the charge against the accused is vitiated. 5. I find that the learned trial court Judge is in error. A reading of Rule 20 would shows that in the case of samples of milk a preservative known as formalin shall be added. While stating ‘formalin’ it has stated the ingredients thereof as a ‘liquid containing about 40 per cent of formal dehyde in acqueous solution in the proportion of 30 (0.1 ml (two drops) for 25 ml. or 25 gms.). Therefore, when the Food Inspector has stated that he had added the preservative formalin, he need not say what is meant by formalin or the ingredients of formalin. Hence, the ground on which the trial court has acquitted the accused cannot be sustained. 6.There is no other ground argued or found on the basis of which the accused would be otherwise entitled to acquittal. I find the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused. Hence, the ground on which the trial court has acquitted the accused cannot be sustained. 6.There is no other ground argued or found on the basis of which the accused would be otherwise entitled to acquittal. I find the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused. Therefore, the order of acquittal has to be set aside and the accused has to be convicted. Accordingly the order of acquittal is set aside and the accused is convicted under Secs.7 and 16(1) read with Sec.2(ia)(a)(m) of the Act. 7. Now the date of the commission of the offence is 21. 1984, i.e. about ten years ago. Considering this I think the accused can be awarded only the minimum punishment of six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The accused will be entitled to remission of the substantive sentence of imprisonment of six months under G.O.Ms.No.296, dated 20.2.1993. Therefore, she need not surrender to custody. For payment of fine amount the accused is granted six months time from today.