Order.- The petitioner was prosecuted by the Food Inspector of Thanneermukkom Panchayat under section 16, read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act-hereinafter referred to as the Act-for having stocked and exposed for sale kesari dhall, an article injurious to health and banned under Rule 44-A of the Rules framed under the Act. On 31st March, 1962, P.W.2the then Food Inspector visited the grocery shop of the accused and found 80 kilograms of kesari dhall stocked and exposed for sale and purchased 600 grams out of that. After observing all the formalities it was duly sampled and one part of the sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Analyst in his report Exhibit P-8 certified that the sample consisted of lac dhall otherwise known as kesari dhall (Lalhyrus Sativus). The Additional First Class Magistrate of Sherthallai who tried the case found the accused guilty and convicted him of the offence charged and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.100. On appeal before the Sessions Judge of Alleppey the conviction and sentence were confirmed. Aggrieved with the order the accused has come up in revision. In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 104 and Cr.R.P. Nos. 430 and 438 of 1963 (not reported), learned Counsel did not press the contention about the validity of Rule 44-A imposing a total ban on the storage or sale of kesari dhall but he contended that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving that the sample was, in fact, kesari dhall. His contention is that the only evidence on which the Courts below found that the article was kesari dhall was the report of the Public Analyst and as the report is vague and does not give any data on which his conclusions were based, the certificate cannot be acted upon. The certificate of the Analyst is in the following terms: “I further certify that I have caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample, and declare the result of the analysis to be as follows: Physical and microscopic examination: Characteristic of lac dhall otherwise known as kesari dhall (Lathyrus Sativus). and am of the opinion that the said sample consists of lac dhall otherwise known as kesari dhall {Lathy rus Sativus) and is therefore adulterated. and am of the opinion that the said sample consists of lac dhall otherwise known as kesari dhall {Lathy rus Sativus) and is therefore adulterated. The sale of lac dhall (Lathyrus Sativus) is prohibited on account of the fact that its consumption is injurious to public health.” What the characteristics that he noticed were from which he came to the conclusion that it was kesari dhall has not been mentioned in the certificate. The prosecution could well have examined the Public Analyst to speak to the characteristics that he noticed which showed that it was kesari dhall, but that has not been done. Learned Counsel referred us to the case in City Corporation of Trivandrum v. T.R.Reddiar1, where also the certificate was worded in identical terms. This Court held that the conviction cannot be sustained on that certificate as it was not stated in the certificate what the characteristics noted by the Analyst were. This decision was rendered in February, 1962 and probably the decision would not have come to the notice of the Analyst when he prepared his certificate in May, 1962, but the evidence in the case was taken only in 1963 and it was open to the prosecution counsel to have examined the Public Analyst to depose in Court as to what the characteristics were that he noticed on which he based his conclusions. Microscopic examination would have shown certain peculiar characteristics from which the dhall could be identified as kesari dhall but what it is has to be mentioned in the certificate. Under the proviso to section 13(5) of the Act any document purporting to be a report signed by a Public Analyst may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceedings under this Act. But it has been repeatedly laid down that the certificate of the Anlayst should contain factual data and not merly his opinion as to what the data indicated about the nature of the article and if the certificate only gives the final opinion of the Analyst and if such an opinion is treated to be conclusive about the nature of the article the evidence against the accused is really decided by the Public Analyst and not by the Court and that it cannot be the position in law. In the absence of any data and in the absence of the evidence of the Analyst we are unable to hold that the sample was really the prohibited variety of kesari dhall. We cannot accede to the belated request of the State Prosecutor that an opportunity should now be given to adduce further evidence by the examination of the Analyst. The only course open to us is to quash the conviction and sentence and acquit the accused. We do so. The revision petition is allowed. Fine, if paid, would be refunded. M.C.M. ----- Petition allowed.