HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2075 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The lower Court acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the Act) on the ground that excess preservative namely formulin was added to the sample of milk and that lesser sample of milk than prescribed was sent to the public analyst for analysis. In this case, 20 drops of formulin was added to each sample of milk, though it is noticed by the lower Court that one drop of formulin has to be added for every 25 ml. of milk. Adding of surplus quantity of formulin is no ground for acquittal. If any lesser quantity of preservative is added than prescribed quantity, then it can be a ground for acquittal. By adding excess quantity of preservative, there cannot be any chemical action or reaction in the food item. Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 prescribes that approximately, the quantity to be supplied to the public analyst as sample in the case of milk is 250 ml. It is mandatory. Though PW.1 Food Inspector deposed that he obtained 750 ml of milk and divided the same into 3 equal parts and collected each part into a sample bottle, the said sample bottles are of the capacity of 180 ml each. It is not known as to what happened to the surplus quantity of 70 ml of milk. 180 ml of milk in one sample is not the sufficient quantity as per Rule 22 of the Rules. Therefore, the lower Court rightly acquitted the accused as the Food Inspector did not send required quantity of sample of milk for analysis to the public analyst. On the basis of report of the public analyst received by analyzing insufficient quantity of milk, no conviction can be recorded. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt.19th December, 2011. PNV