infested. The fat content of the 'sample was reported to be 25%. On the basis of the report ·of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector lodged a complaint agairist the appellant before the Judical Magistrate, First·Class, Moga. The appellant entered appearance and duly exercised his right under sub-s. (2) of s. 13. The learned Magistrate sent one. of the two parts of the sample to the Director of the· Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for purposes of analysis under sub s. (2B) and the remaining .part to the Local (Health) Authoriiy as required under .sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 of the Act. The Director by his letter dated May 2, 1978. intimated that the sample received-by him was decomposed and therefore unfit for analysis and added. that the counter-part of the sample may be sent to him immediately .for analysis and report. It appears that for a period of six months appearently nothing .was done. On November 10, 1978 the .learned . Magistrate forwarded the remaining part of the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad for purposes of analysis. The report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad dated Decem]ler 7, 1978 revealed that the sample was adulterated. ·The fat content was howeve.r stated to be 33.12%·with • a note added that "the extracted fat of .20.37% did not comply with the standards of milk fat for the State of Punjab". At the conclusion of the arguments, an application was made by the prosecution for clarification to be sought from the Director, Central Food Labo-. ratory, Ghaziabad since the "report was not clear, The learned • Magistrate however rejected the application and proceeded to judgment. He held that the certificate of the Director, Central· Food Laboratory, Ghaziabod had the effect of superseding the report of the Public Analyst, Chandigarh under sub-s. (3) of s. 13 and therefore it could not be looked into. He further relied upon a decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Ram Prakash v. State of Himachal Pradesh(') and held that the certificate of the Director, Central ·Food Laboratory, Calcutta that the sample had become unfit for analysis had become final and therefore there· was no occasion for sending the remaining part of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory; Ghazibad for analysis. . He also held that even assuming that the sample "sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta had become 'damagd' within the meaning of proviso ' to sub.s. (2C) of s. 13 and therefore he could proceed in the manner provided by sub-s. (2B), the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad showed the fat content to be 33.12% i.e. in
