S. R. BRAHMBHATT, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsels of the parties. The Appellant State of Gujarat has preferred leave to appeal and appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of acquittal passed by learned CJM, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Case No. 23 of 2000 dated 16. 12. 2003 acquitting the accused/present respondents of the charge of committing offence punishable under Section 2, 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration act. (herein after referred to as the PFA Act for brevity ). ( 2 ) THE impugned order of acquittal is essentially based upon the findings that the prosecution has failed in establishing its case beyond doubt against the respondents/ original accused. The infirmities noticed by the trial court and recorded in its judgment are treated as vitiating the case of the prosecution. Learned counsels were permitted to address this Court at length on merits of the appeal at the admission stage. Learned app Shri Patel has produced on record the relevant papers pertaining to the Criminal case No. 23 of 2000 and addressed this Court on merits at length. ( 3 ) THE facts leading to filing of this leave to appeal and appeal are deserved to be set out as under. ( 4 ) THE original complainant Food Inspector while discharging his duty as such on 2. 8. 1999 at 13. 30 hrs reached Bhoomi Dairy, at that time one tempo bearing registration no. GTE-8189 was parked nearby. The tempo was examined as it was carrying milk packets weighing 500 ml each of ratna shakti Standard Milk Brand. The owner of bhoomi dairy Shri Iswarbhai Manilal Patel was requested to witness the proceedings. On his willingness to act as panch and in his presence the tempo owner gave his name and said that the tempo belongs to him and he was selling milk. He said that the milk packets of Ratna Dairy were brought by him directly from the Ratna Dairy, who was producer and seller of the milk. He said that he was the distributor of ratna Shakti milk. The Food Inspector deposed before the court that he purchased two packets of standard milk weighing 500 ml, after issuing notice under Rule 12 in form No. VI that the said samples were to be taken for examination by Public Analyst. The price of Rs. 9. He said that he was the distributor of ratna Shakti milk. The Food Inspector deposed before the court that he purchased two packets of standard milk weighing 500 ml, after issuing notice under Rule 12 in form No. VI that the said samples were to be taken for examination by Public Analyst. The price of Rs. 9. 75 was paid for purchasing the milk and receipt was obtained which was produced at exhibit-13. The milk packets were containing writing that it was ratna Standard milk. The packer was ratna Dairy, Vijapur. The milk in first instance was collected in the vessel known as thapeli in common parlance and 250 ml milk was returned back to the vendor and 750 ml milk was stirred and after adding requisite amount of preservative formalin, milk was collected in glass bottles. The glass bottles were sealed in presence of panch. Panchnama was drawn. One part of the sample food article (milk) was sent to the public Analyst. The remaining two parts were sent to Local Health Authority. The memorandum and specimen copy of seal was prepared and was also sent to Public analyst at Bhuj. The sample was opined to be adulterated as it was not in conformity with the standards laid down under the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the PFA Rules for brevity ). Therefore the papers were sent for obtaining sanction for launching prosecution against the accused for committing offence under Section 2, 7 and 16 of the PFA act. The sanction was granted on 7. 1. 2000 which is produced on record. Local Health authority was informed that the complaint was filed on 7. 1. 2000 vide covering letter which is produced at exhibit-38. Notice under Section 13 (2) came to be issued to the accused. Office copy is at exhibit-39. All the four accused were served notice under section 13 (2) of the Act and postal acknowledgment receipts are at exhibit 40 to 43. The accused were summoned. As they denied the charge, the trial commenced. The statement of accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code wherein also they denied the case of the prosecution. All the four accused were served notice under section 13 (2) of the Act and postal acknowledgment receipts are at exhibit 40 to 43. The accused were summoned. As they denied the charge, the trial commenced. The statement of accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code wherein also they denied the case of the prosecution. The trial court after detailed discussions came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed in discharging its duty beyond doubt and therefore acquitted accused for the offence punishable under Section 2, 7 and 16 of the act, vide judgment and order dated 16. 12. 2003 which is impugned in the present proceedings. ( 5 ) SHRI Patel, learned APP has submitted that when the Food Inspector unequivocally stated in his testimony that the mandatory provisions of collecting sample, sealing the same and sending it to the Public analyst have been duly complied with and when Central Food Laboratory has also in its report confirmed that the sample food article was adulterated and it was not in conformity with the standards laid down under the rules; the trial court ought not to have acquitted the accused on the ground of so called technical infirmities in the case of the prosecution. The certificate issued by director of Central Food Laboratory being a conclusive proof of adulteration, the same ought to have appreciated in its proper perspective by the trial court. Shri Patel submitted that as the trial court has not appreciated the facts on record, the order of acquittal is perverse and therefore same deserve to be quashed and set aside and the accused be convicted and punished appropriately under Section 2, 7 and 16 of the PFA act. ( 6 ) SHRI Patel has produced on record relevant case papers pertaining to Criminal case No. 23 of 2000 and submitted that the trial court s finding with regard to non-compliance with mandatory provision of Rule 14 is also not correct and therefore the accused be convicted in accordance with law. ( 7 ) SHRI Modi learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that this being an acquittal appeal under Section 378 of the Cr. P. C. unless and until it is amply demonstrated by the appellant that the order impugned has resulted into miscarriage of justice the same cannot be interfered with by this Court. ( 7 ) SHRI Modi learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that this being an acquittal appeal under Section 378 of the Cr. P. C. unless and until it is amply demonstrated by the appellant that the order impugned has resulted into miscarriage of justice the same cannot be interfered with by this Court. Shri Modi has submitted that in the acquittal appeal it is open to the accused/present respondents to support the order of acquittal on the reasoning and grounds available from the record, and also to point out other grounds independent of the reasoning by the trial court for according the acquittal. Shri Modi has submitted that no useful purpose is likely to be served by granting leave and admitting the appeal as it can be demonstrated from the record that the prosecution had failed in establishing its case beyond doubt. Shri Modi has further submitted that the prosecution has not demonstrated and established by leading cogent evidence that there was due compliance with mandatory provision of Rule 14 of the PEA Rules. ( 8 ) SHRI Modi also submitted without prejudice to above stated submissions that there is one more submission in support of the acquittal, namely that the test carried out has not been described by the Director of Central Food Laboratory who was responsible for coming to the conclusion that the sample food article was adulterated. Shri modi submitted that, it is the duty cast upon the authority giving certificate to indicate in detail and in absolutely unequivocal terms so as to indicate the method of test carried out for coming to a particular conclusion. In support of his submission Shri modi has relied upon a decision of the Apex court in case of Kisan Trimbak Kothule and others v. State of Maharashtra on Food adulteration Cases and submitted that the apex Court has held that, it was not enough to give just mechanical details. What is very important is that the prosecution has to show the process by which the conclusion had been arrived at by the Public Analyst. What is very important is that the prosecution has to show the process by which the conclusion had been arrived at by the Public Analyst. Shri Modi has also relied upon another decision of the Apex Court in case of Corporation of the city of Nagpur v. Neetam manikrao Kature and others, wherein the apex Court while disposing of the appeal observed that Gurber s method of analysis of the quality of food substance was not of assured quality and accuracy and such method was not certified by the Indian standard Institute. The Public Analyst followed gurber s method for analysis and therefore, it was held that the acquittal improper. Shri modi has submitted that in the instant case the Director of Central Food Laboratory has not indicated as to what test was carried out for coming to a particular conclusion, and therefore this is all the more a case on a better footing than the case before the apex Court. Shri Modi has also relied upon a case reported in case of Mahmad Hanif shaikh Ibrahim v. State of Gujarat in support of his submission that the report of the public Analyst on the basis of which the accused can be connected with the crime alleged against him should be containing full and complete data of scientific tests etc. Shri Modi has submitted that in view of above, the order of acquittal cannot be said to be resulting into miscarriage of justice and it being just and proper no useful purpose would be served in granting leave. He submitted that the appeal be dismissed at this stage itself as the relevant papers have been placed on record and it can be seen from the record that no such test carried out was prescribed or mentioned by Director of CFL. ( 9 ) THIS Court heard learned counsels of the parties on merits of the matter and perused the papers. The perusal of testimony of the Food Inspector and especially his cross-examination go to show that the food article in question was at first instance collected in thapeli which is nowhere stated to be cleaned and or caused to be cleaned so as to prevent any type of particle getting into the food article. The perusal of testimony of the Food Inspector and especially his cross-examination go to show that the food article in question was at first instance collected in thapeli which is nowhere stated to be cleaned and or caused to be cleaned so as to prevent any type of particle getting into the food article. In fact it is stated by the Food Inspector that the vessel i. e. thapeli was wet, though subsequently it was said that the vessel was dried before milk was poured into it. However, when it was dried and whom it was dried, is not stated by the Food Inspector. This fact and coupled with the fact that 2 pouches of 500 ml milk which were purchased and poured into the vessel and thereafter 250 ml was returned back to the vendor and only 750 ml milk was retained. This fact go to show that the fat being light in weight might have remained on the upper portion of the milk which was returned back in form of 250 ml to the vendor. It also deserve to be noted that the bottles employed for collecting and preserving sample food article also have not been proved to be cleaned as required under section 14 of the Rules. This Court in case of state of Gujarat v. Bhupendra M. Mehta has observed that, the duty is cast upon the prosecution not only to comply with the mandatory provision of law by using clean and dry bottles for storing the sample but also to satisfy the court by leading evidence that the bottles used were clean and dry. Therefore it is the bounden duty cast upon the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence to show to the satisfaction of the trial court that there was due compliance with provision 14 of the Rules. ( 10 ) SHRI Modi s submission with regard to infirmity in the report of Central Food laboratory, as it did not contain specific method and test carried out by Director of cfl deserves consideration and acceptance. The report of the CFL which has the effect of preceding earlier report of Public Analyst at exhibit 45. The report of the CFL contains opinion that the sample milk is adulterated. The conclusions are shown but it is not clear as to how those conclusions are arrived at. The report of the CFL which has the effect of preceding earlier report of Public Analyst at exhibit 45. The report of the CFL contains opinion that the sample milk is adulterated. The conclusions are shown but it is not clear as to how those conclusions are arrived at. The results are shown but it is not mentioned as to which are the test and methods conducted for arriving this conclusion. The decision of the Apex Court in case of Kisan Trimbak Kothule and Ors and corporation of The City of Nagpur would be very much relevant as it is clearly observed by the Apex Court that the report must contain the method of test which is required to be carried out. In the instant case as the report itself is silent about the test and method employed for coming to the conclusion with regard to adulteration, same cannot be said to be a valid and cogent document so as to bring home guilt on the part of the accused in proceedings under Section 378 of the Code. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussions, this court is of the considered view that, as the order impugned has not resulted into any miscarriage of justice and the same being just and proper, no interference is called for under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The leave therefore is refused and, as the leave is refused, the appeal shall stand dismissed. Appeal dismissed.