- (1.) The acquittal of the appellant was upset by the High court on the ground that the contention of the appellant before the Trial Magistrate with regard to the infraction of Rules 14, 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 was not material and that the appellant should be held guilty for selling to the Food. Inspector substandard curds in which there was a shortfall of milk solid fats to the extent of. 06%. The other ground for acquittal apparently seems to have been abandoned by the appellant before the High court which was to the effect that even though churning of the curds in the container in which it was lying for sale had not been done, but that was due to the fault of the vendor-appellant and not due to any neglect of duty on behalf of the Food Inspector. We have reservations about the legal requirement of stirring and churning to be performed by the vendor. In order to attain homogeneity in curds stirring and churning, as the case may be, becomes necessary for the ingredients of milk solid non-fat and milk solid fat getting a uniform consistency in order to determine the percentage in their completeness. Besides, if possible, curds need to be given a vertical cut. In the complaint it is specifically mentioned by the Food Inspector that about 10 litres of curds were lying in the hotel of the appellant in the aluminium pot wherefrom he purchased the samples. Nowhere did he mention that the curds were stirred and churned before a sample was taken or that it was given a vertical cut and was possible to do so be it at the behest of the appellant or that of the Food Inspector. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the samples were not taken in their completeness and those parts of curds may have been taken which would in the ultimate analysis lead to some distortion in the percentage. As is evident, there was a variation of only. 06% in milk solid fat. Keeping that in view, the trial court as it appears to us, was not far too wrong in recording the acquittal of the appellant. The High court should have been well-advised to leave the matter alone and not interfere in an appeal against acquittal. For these reasons, we reverse the High court's order and restore that of the trial court maintaining the acquittal of the appellant. Ordered accordingly.;