JUDGMENT : 1. Judgment and order dated 01.09.2006 passed in Criminal Case No.34 of 2002 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad recording acquittal for the respondent is questioned in this Appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. 2. The respondent came to be charged with offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(1) of the Food Adulteration Act by the charge Exh.-42 in Criminal Case No.34 of 2002. 3. Having considered the rival contentions, this Appeal can be disposed of for want of evidence in support of the conclusion recorded by the public analyst in his report Exh.-23. According to the said report the milk fat which ought to be 3.5% and the milk S.N.F which ought to be 8.5% were deficient to 3.0% and 9.01% respectively and the test for formalin was found to be positive. The public analyst seems to have caused the analysis done and has not done it himself. The protocols data or the method adopted for reaching the above conclusion are lacking; the public analyst was not examined. 4. This Court in the similar circumstances confirmed the acquittal in Criminal Appeal No.241 of 2007. For the reasons set out therein and following the principles laid down therein, in the instant case also in absence of protocols data or material in support of the conclusions recited in the public analyst report Exh.-23, it cannot be said that the case against the respondent that milk fat and milk S.N.F. was deficient to the extent indicated in the report was proved against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant – the Food Inspector is bound to loose on that count and thus the Appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.