Judgment S.P. Pathak, J.-This appeal under Section 378 (iii) & (i) of CrPC has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 20.07.1988 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 385/79 whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954) . 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on October 4, 1979 PW. 1 Girish Narayan Mathur purchased 375 grams Soyabean Oil from the shop of accused-respondent situated near Vegetable Market, Ghantaghar, Jodhpur. The Soyabean oil purchased was divided into three parts and each part was filled in a bottle. The bottles were sealed and one of the bottles was sent to Public Analyst, Jodhpur for examination alongwith Form No.7 through Bheem Singh, Peon. The Public Analyst in his report Exhibit P/10 found that the sample was adulterated as it was an admixture of soyabean oil and til oil. On October 5, 1979, a complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur and on December 7, 1979 a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was forwarded to the accused as required by Rule 9-A of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1955). The accused-respondent, however, made no application to the trial Court for sending one of the samples to the laboratory for further analysis. 3. The learned trial Court framed charges against accused-respondent under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954. Accused denied the charges. During the course of trial, in support of its case, prosecution examined PW. 1 Girish Narayan Mathur and PW. 2 Shankarlal and tendered 16 documents in evidence. After close of the prosecution evidence, in the statement recorded under Section 313, CrPC, accused-respondent made a denial and in defence examined DW. 1 Chandu. .4. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Court vide its Judgment and order dated 20.07.1988 passed in criminal case No. 385/79 acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges levelled against him under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954. Aggrieved, the State has preferred the present appeal. .5. The learned trial Court while acquitting the accused-respondent held as under:- 1. .4. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Court vide its Judgment and order dated 20.07.1988 passed in criminal case No. 385/79 acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges levelled against him under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954. Aggrieved, the State has preferred the present appeal. .5. The learned trial Court while acquitting the accused-respondent held as under:- 1. That the prosecution had been successful in proving that the oil was purchased and sample was sent for examination to find out whether the same was adulterated or not. The trial Court was of the opinion that accused has sold the soyabean oil and the same was adulterated. 2. That the accused was running the shop under the name and style of M/s. Arjun Store and the samples were collected as per the prescribed procedure. 3. That the plea of alibi of the accused that he was not present at the shop when the sample was taken is not believable in view of various documents tendered in evidence and in view of the fact that no cross-examination was addressed to the witness PW. 1 Girish Narayan Mathur in relation to the plea of alibi. 4. That no provision was brought to the notice of the Court to show that in soyabean oil testing .B.R. Readingshould not been positive. Finding to that effect has been recorded in Para 12 of the Judgment . The trial Court was of the view that B.R. Reading, whether positive or negative, makes no difference since in the report of the Public Analyst Exhibit P/10 it has not been detailed as to how much positive the Baudoin test was, as such it was not necessary to consider the report Exhibit P/10 and therefore acquitted the accused-respondent. .6. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned Counsel for accused-respondent. 7. It was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has erred in not placing reliance on Exhibit P/10, the report of the Public Analyst dated 210.1979. According to him, this report clearly indicates that soyabean oil purchased by PW. 1 Girish Naryaan Mathur on 010.1979 was found to be adulterated. It was further contended that the sample of soyabean oil after testing was found to be admixture of two oils, which was in violation of Rule 41-E of the Rules of 1955. According to him, this report clearly indicates that soyabean oil purchased by PW. 1 Girish Naryaan Mathur on 010.1979 was found to be adulterated. It was further contended that the sample of soyabean oil after testing was found to be admixture of two oils, which was in violation of Rule 41-E of the Rules of 1955. His further contention was that since the respondent was communicated with the result of the report of Public Analyst but he did not opt to make a request to send the samples for further testing by the Central Food Laboratory as per the provisions contained in Section 13(2) of the Act, therefore, it cannot be said that the case of accused-respondent has been prejudiced in any manner. He submitted that the report received Exhibit P/10 after test from Public Analyst was required to be considered in its correct perspectives. He also submitted that the report of the Public Analyst having become final, the learned trial Court ought to have convicted the accused-respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor in support of his submissions placed reliance on a decision reported in 1984 (4) SCC 487 (Tulsi Ram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh). 8. On the other hand, it was contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the accused-respondent that the standards prescribed in Article A.17 of Appendix-B for the soyabean oil after test were found in conformity with the prescribed standards, therefore, the report of Public Analyst was discarded by the learned trial Court and the accused-respondent was rightly acquitted of the charges framed against him. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that it was essential to conduct Baudoin test and its result after test being positive, it could be presumed that the sample after test was found to be adulterated because in Article 17.13 of Appendix-I (B) attached to the Act there is no requirement for conducting Baudoin test. According to the learned Counsel, Exhibit P/10 the report of Public Analyst is suggestive of the fact that the datas therein are as per the standards prescribed. He submitted further that the trial Court has recorded the finding in favour of accused-respondent and he has been acquitted of the charge, therefore, the findings based on proper appreciation of evidence are required to be maintained. He submitted further that the trial Court has recorded the finding in favour of accused-respondent and he has been acquitted of the charge, therefore, the findings based on proper appreciation of evidence are required to be maintained. He also submitted that even if it is found that two views could possibly be taken on the basis of record available then too the view one which finds favour with the accused is to be taken. In the last, he submitted that the matter relates to an incident of 1979 and more than 25 years have elapsed since then, therefore, after such a long lapse of time accused-respondent should not be sent to jail. According to the learned Counsel, the accused-respondent has already suffered a protracted litigation all these years and, therefore, a lenient view is required to be taken in his case if the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused is liable to be convicted. The learned Counsel placed reliance on (1) 1975 PFA Cases 1975 (Santosh Kumar Dutta vs. Chairman, Saptgram Small Town Committee & Anr.), (2) 1976 CrLJ 336 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Kacheroo Mal, (3) 1986 (I) PFA Cases 181 (Kamal Kishore vs. The Delhi Administration), (4) 2005 (1) RCC 390 (Damodar Prasad vs. State of Rajasthan), and (5) 1999 CrLJ 468 (State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. M/s. Gopalprasad Govindprasad Agarwal). 9. Before proceeding further, it shall be proper to carefully examine the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court and the High Courts in the authorities cited before me. Authorities cited by Learned Public Prosecutor: 10. vs. M/s. Gopalprasad Govindprasad Agarwal). 9. Before proceeding further, it shall be proper to carefully examine the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court and the High Courts in the authorities cited before me. Authorities cited by Learned Public Prosecutor: 10. The case of Tulsi Ram (Supra), relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor, was a case in which the Honble Supreme Court, while dealing with several provisions under the Provisions of Food Adulteration Act and particularly Rule 44(e) of the Rules of 1955, observed that conjoint reading of Rule 9-A and Section 13(2) of the Act would convey a sense of continuity rather than urgency in sending the samples for examination and that the report of the Public Analyst is to be made available to the accused-vendor before prosecution starts leading evidence in the case within good and sufficient time to enable the accused to exercise his right under Section 13(2) of Act of sample being analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory, so that he may not complain about the delay in the receipt of the report by him and in view of that non-compliance of Rule 9-A was held not fatal, and consequently the conviction of the accused-petitioner upheld who was convicted by the learned Magistrate and High Court affirmed his conviction in revision. Authorities cited on behalf of accused-respondent: 11. In the case of Santosh Kumar Dutta vs. Chairman, Saptgram Small Town Committee & Anr. (Supra), the Gauhati High Court while considering a case of admixture of two oils, observed that adulterated sample of mustard oil containing sesame oil was otherwise conforming to standards, as under the standard laid down for mustard seeds, it may have upto 7% foreign seeds other than argemone seed and thus mustard oil can be reasonably expected to contain upto 7% another edible oil other than argemone oil and held that accused could not be convicted for selling adulterated mustard oil though he might be guilty for breach of Rule 44(e) and as the accused was not charged under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 7(v) of the Act, the conviction was not sustained. 12. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Kacheroo Mal (Supra), the trial Magistrate convicted the accused-respondent and on appeal the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. 12. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Kacheroo Mal (Supra), the trial Magistrate convicted the accused-respondent and on appeal the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. The High Court of Delhi accepted the revision petition and by special leave the matter came before the Honble Supreme Court. In that case the Food Inspector had purchased 600 grams of Kaju Tukra (Cashew nut pieces) and when the sample was sent to Public Analyst, he found that the same was adulterated due to insect infested pieces of cashews to the extent of 21.9%. The Honble Apex Court observed that in view of the construction that the expression “insect-infested includes infestation even by dead insects, the further point to be considered is, whether mere insect-infestation without more, would be sufficient to hold the article to be “adulterated” within the meaning of Sub-clause (f) of Clause (i) of Section 2 of the Act. It was observed that in each case it must be proved that the article was unfit for human consumption. The Honble Apex Court further observed: “. . . It is desirable that the Public Analyst should express his opinion on all the relevant points with reference to the particular sub-clause or sub-clauses of Section 2(i) of the Act. This will not only enhance the value of his report but also facilitate the task of the Court. If it is merely dogmatic, that would be a circumstance detracting from its evidential value though it may not render it inadmissible.” The Court further observed that the opinion of the Public Analyst who examined and analyzes the sample, as to the fitness or otherwise of the sample for human consumption, would constitute legal evidence but this does not mean that his ipse dixit would be conclusive and binding on the Court. It is for the Court to weigh his opinion and reach its conclusion. In the operative part of the Judgment , the Honble Apex Court held as under: “No useful purpose will therefore be served by remanding the case for a fresh decision. Taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, we do not think it proper to disturb the acquittal of the respondent. In the operative part of the Judgment , the Honble Apex Court held as under: “No useful purpose will therefore be served by remanding the case for a fresh decision. Taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, we do not think it proper to disturb the acquittal of the respondent. Subject to the clarification of the points of law and the reversal of view taken by the High Court as to the meaning and scope of Section 2(ii), the appeal is dismissed.” 13. In the case of Kamal Kishore vs. The Delhi Administration (Supra), the Honble Delhi High Court on a petition to quash the charges framed under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the PFA Act where adulteration in the sample was of marginal nature and more than 16 years had elapsed, taking into consideration that no standard was prescribed for the imported refined palm oil at the time when the sample was taken, held that in absence of any prescribed standard, the sample article of food could not be held to be adulterated on account of its sub-standard in quality. 14. In the case of Damodar Prasad vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra) this Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of accused petitioner though the sample did not confirm the prescribed standard as the Public Analyst had not specifically and clearly opined that the sample of clove was injurious to health. 15. In the present case, it shall be useful to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Act, Rules and also the standards prescribed for soyabean and til oil to see as to whether any violation of the provisions of the Act has been made by the accused-respondent and on account of report Exhibit P/10 whether the trial Court was legally justified in recording the order of acquittal in favour of accused-respondent? Section (2) Definitions.-In this Act unless the context otherwise requires,- (i) “adulterant” means any material which is or could be employed for the purpose of adulteration; (i-a)”adulterated” an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated - .(a) If the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be; x x x x x x x x .(m) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in qualities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health: Provided that, where the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities are not within the prescribed limits of variability, in either case, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, then, such article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this sub-clause. Explanation.-Where two or more articles of primary food are mixed together and the resultant article of food- .(a) is stored, sold or distributed under a name which denotes the ingredients thereof ; and .(b) is not injurious to health, then, such resultant article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this clause; . . . . . . Section 16. Penalties.-Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1-A), if any person- (a) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf , imports into India or manufacture for sale, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food- (i) which is adulterated within the meaning of sub-clause (m) of clause (i-a) of Section 2 or misbranded within the meaning of clause (ix) of that section or the sale of which is prohibited under any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder or by an order of the Food (Health) Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the Judgment , impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years and with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees. Rule 44. Sale of certain admixtures prohibited.-Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 43 no person shall either by himself or by any servant or agent sell . . . . (e) a mixture of two or more edible oils as an edible oil. Article 113.-Syabean Oil means the oil expressed from clean and sound soyabeans (Soja max) from which the major portion of the gums naturally present have been removed by hydration and mechanical or physical separation. It shall be clear, free from rancidity, suspended or other foreign matter, separated water, added colouring or flavouring substances or mineral oil. It shall conform to the following standards:- (a) Butyro-refractometer reading at 40 degree centigrade 61.7 to 69.5 (b) Saponification value 189 to 195 (c) Iodine value 120 to 141 (d) Unsaponifiable matter Not more than 1.2 per cent (e) Free fatty acid as Oleic acid Not more than 1.25 per cent (f) Phosphorus Not more than 0.02 per cent. 16. A perusal of the above provisions indicate that Section 16 makes a person liable to punishment if whether by himself or any other person on his behalf , he imports into India or manufacture for sale, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food which is adulterated within the meaning of Sub-clause (i-a) of Section 2 or misbranded within the meaning of Clause (ix) of that section or the sale of which is prohibited under any provision of the Act or any rule made thereunder or by an order of Food (Health) Authority. It is also apparent from the reading of Rule 44(e) that it prohibits sale of a mixture of two or more edible oils. 17. It is also apparent from the reading of Rule 44(e) that it prohibits sale of a mixture of two or more edible oils. 17. In the instant case, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court to the extent that report Exhibit P/10 was not liable to be looked into for the purpose of recording conviction of accused-respondent is perverse and illegal in view of the fact that in Para 12 of the Judgment it has been mentioned that no provision was brought to the notice that in soyabean oil B.R. Reading should be positive. 18. A glance over the standards prescribed, reproduced hereinabove, indicates that Butyro-refractometer reading should be between 61.7 to 69.5%. If that is so, then it appears that it has been wrongly assumed that in Article 17.13 there is no mention of B.R. Reading. In this view of the matter, holding that whether the B.R. Reading is positive or negative does not make a difference, is illegal and against the prescribed norms available for finding out the contents of soyabean oil. 19. Now having come to the conclusion that the learned trial Court has not properly considered the provisions of the Act, Rules and the standards prescribed for the soyabean regarding contents, and has misread the same, the matter is required to be examined afresh. 20. PW. 1 in his statement has stated that on 010.1979 while he was posted as Food Inspector in Jodhpur, he alongwith Dr. A.K. Chhangani, Dy. CM&HO, checked the shop of accused-respondent and before checking, demanded licence for sale and the accused gave the receipt of the municipality in that behalf . It has further been stated that he purchased 375 grams soyabean oil after making payment of Rs.3.40. After purchase of soyabean oil, it was divided into three parts and filled in separate bottles. He has stated that the bottles were sealed as per the prescribed procedure. After completing the formalities at the shop, he came to his office and prepared Form No.7 in six copies and did other formalities for sending the sample for examination by the Public Analyst, Jodhpur. The examination report after the testing of sample Exhibit P/10 was received. He has stated that the bottles were sealed as per the prescribed procedure. After completing the formalities at the shop, he came to his office and prepared Form No.7 in six copies and did other formalities for sending the sample for examination by the Public Analyst, Jodhpur. The examination report after the testing of sample Exhibit P/10 was received. Prosecution sanction Exhibit P/11 was obtained, complaint Exhibit P/13 was filed in the Court, the accused-respondent was furnished with the copy of complaint and the report Exhibit P/10 received regarding the test conducted of the sample and the same was found to be adulterated i.e. it was an admixture of soyabean and til oil and as such was not of the nature as it purports to be. The accused was also intimated that in case he wanted to get the sample rechecked then he could do so. The Public Analysts report was sent to the accused by registered post on 12.1988. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the present case was not of misbranding but it was a case of adulteration. It has further been stated in the cross-examination that the finding of Baudoin test was required to be negative to show that the sample was not adulterated. 21. Another witness PW. 2, who was motbir Shankarlal, has been declared hostile but this witness has accepted his signatures on various documents prepared at the shop of the accused. In defence, DW. 1 Chandu has been examined to prove that at the time when he reached at the shop of the accused, the accused was not there and PW. 1 alone was there at the shop. 22. In the statement recorded under Section 313, CrPC there is simple denial of the accused and he has stated that he was not at the shop when PW. 1 Girish Narayan Mathur reached at the shop. 23. After carefully examining the evidence brought on record, it stands proved by the prosecution that on 010.1979 soyabean oil weighing 375 grams was purchased from the shop of accused-respondent after making payment. The soyabean oil so purchased was equally sealed in three bottles, the sample was sent for testing to find out whether the soyabean oil purchased was adulterated or not. The report Exhibit P/10 indicates without any manner of doubt that the soyabean oil purchased was admixture of two edible oils. 4.24. The soyabean oil so purchased was equally sealed in three bottles, the sample was sent for testing to find out whether the soyabean oil purchased was adulterated or not. The report Exhibit P/10 indicates without any manner of doubt that the soyabean oil purchased was admixture of two edible oils. 4.24. Now, it is to be seen as to whether the argument of learned Counsel for the accused-respondent is tenable that there was no necessity to conduct Baudoin test and even if the test has been conducted then it is not as per the prescribed norms available in the standard, therefore, the report Exhibit P/10 is of no consequence. 25. I have carefully gone through the contents of Exhibit P/10 and also the standard prescribed in Article 17.13 of Appendix I-B reproduced hereinabove. Article 17.13 states that Soyabean Oil means the oil expressed from clean and sound soyabeans from which the major portion of the gums naturally present have been removed by hydration and mechanical or physical separation. It shall be clear, free from rancidity, suspended or other foreign matter, separated water, added colouring or flavouring substances or mineral oil. The standard prescribes the percentage of the contents in soyabean oil to show that whether the oil is adulterated one or not. 26. It is correct that there is no mention of Baudoin test which finds place in Exhibit P/10. In this regard, in cross-examination, a question has been put to PW. 1 Girish Narayan Mathur, who has stated that this test showed that the soyabean oil was adulterated, the finding after test ought to be negative to show that there was no adulteration found in the sample sent for examination. .27. With regard to the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused-respondent that the Public Analyst has not given the basis for his conclusion regarding positive result after Baudoin test was indicative of admixture of two oils. .27. With regard to the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused-respondent that the Public Analyst has not given the basis for his conclusion regarding positive result after Baudoin test was indicative of admixture of two oils. The contention is not tenable because under Section 13(5) of the Act any document purporting to be a report signed by a Public Analyst unless it has been superseded under Sub-section (3), or any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceedings under the Act under the proviso, any document purporting to be a certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. If the report of the Public Analyst was not satisfactory, it was open to the accused-respondent to have made an application to send the preserved sample for further examination to the Central Food Laboratory. If he had made an application to send the sample for further examination, the certificate granted by the Director of Central Food Laboratory would have superseded the report given by the Public Analyst. This has not been done by the accused-respondent, therefore, the report Exhibit P/10 given by the Public Analyst became final and conclusive regarding the facts mentioned therein. 28. Now this takes me to consider the submission regarding taking lenient view in the matter. 29. In my view of aforesaid discussion, there is no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are based on misreading of the report of Public Analyst and further in view of Rule 44(e) of the Rules of 1955 when there is admixture of two oils, it is a case of adulteration. 30. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, now the question which requires determination is as to whether after having come to the conclusion that findings arrived at by the learned trial Court acquitting the accused are not not proper and it is liable to be reversed then after a lapse of 26 years would it be in the interest of justice to send the accused-respondent in jail. 2.31. 2.31. In the case of Tulsiram (Supra), cited by learned Public Prosecutor, in which the offence was committed in the year 1979, the matter reached upto the Honble Supreme Court within four years and came to be decided in the year 1984 while in the present matter, which also relates to the year 1979, the accused-respondent has been acquitted as back as in the year 1988 by the trial Court and the matter in the second inning has come on board before this Court for final hearing in the year 2005 after about 26 years. During this period much water has flown over the Ganges and the Honble Apex Court in later decisions looking to the long lapse of time has been pleased to not to take any action against the accused in similar matters as has been held in one of the authorities cited by learned Counsel appearing for the accused-respondent i.e. 1999 CrLJ 468 (State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. M/s. Gopalprasad Govindprasad Agarwal ). 3.32. After giving final consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the offences relating to food adulteration must be severally dealt with, no doubt depending upon the facts of each case, which cannot be considered as precedent in other cases. 4.33. vs. M/s. Gopalprasad Govindprasad Agarwal ). 3.32. After giving final consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the offences relating to food adulteration must be severally dealt with, no doubt depending upon the facts of each case, which cannot be considered as precedent in other cases. 4.33. Ordinarily, after recording above findings, I would have set aside the impugned acquittal and would have remanded the matter for disposal of appeal on merits, but having regard to the fact that incident is alleged to have taken place in the year 1979 and since then accused-respondent has remained on bail for nearly more than 25 years and it is also borne out from the perusal of report of the Public Analyst that the sample satisfied almost all the prescribed standards except one that after Baudoin test it was found to be an admixture of two edible oils and further taking into consideration the fact that the sample taken was not found to be injurious to public health and accused-respondent has been acquitted long back in the year 1988, and also in view of several decisions cited before me including the one rendered in the case of Municipal Corporation vs. Kacheroo Mal (Supra), I am of the view that after the long lapse of time between the commission of office and final hearing of the matter, no useful purpose will be served if after such a long lapse of time the case is remanded back to rewrite the Judgment afresh. 34. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal with the clarifications and observations made hereinabove.