Judgment :- 1. This appeal by the State is against the order of acquittal in a Food Adulteration case. The first accused is the Secretary of a Co-operative Society who sent the milk through his servant accused 2 to be sold to the Co-operative Milk Supplies Union, Kottayam. pw.1, the Food Inspector purchased 24 ozs. of milk from the second accused on payment of the price thereof. The purchase and the sampling and the service of the notice on accused 2 were all done in the presence of two witnesses and they have attested Ext. P 2 memo prepared by the Food Inspector noting the details of the action taken by him. The sample bottle was handed over to accused 2 and he has acknowledged receipt of it. On analysis the milk was found to be adulterated with not less than 7% of added water. The Food Inspector as well as the attestors gave evidence regarding the steps taken by the Food Inspector in purchasing, sampling etc. Accused 1 admitted having sent the milk through accused 2, but according to him it was pure milk that he sent and accused 2 could not have sold the milk as the pot containing the milk was locked. Accused 2 admitted the sale as well as the signing of the mahazar but contended that no sample was given to him as stated therein. 2. The learned District Magistrate accepted the evidence of pws.1 to 3 and held that the purchase and sampling were done in conformity with the provisions of S.10 (7) and also that the milk was adulterated and convicted the accused. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge while confirming the findings of fact set aside the conviction accepting the defence contention that the failure to get the attestors to sign the intimation given to the accused is fatal to the prosecution. He appears to have relied upon the decision of this court in 1959 KLT. 657. 3. The correctness of the findings of fact is not challenged before me by the learned counsel for the accused. His only attempt was to support the acquittal on the strength of 1959 KLT. 657. That was a case of an appeal against an order of acquittal. 657. 3. The correctness of the findings of fact is not challenged before me by the learned counsel for the accused. His only attempt was to support the acquittal on the strength of 1959 KLT. 657. That was a case of an appeal against an order of acquittal. The charge against the accused was that he sold adulterated dahi and the plea of the accused was that what was sold was only skimmed butter-milk and not dahi. The accused further contended that no witnesses were present at the time of the purchase and sampling and they had not signed the duplicate of Ext. P 1 intimation. The real question that came up for consideration & was actually considered in that case was the effect of non compliance with the provisions for taking action under S.10, viz., not taking action in the presence of two witnesses & not getting their attestation to the record evidencing such action; the court was not addressing itself to the question as to what is the particular record on which attestation has to be taken. It so chanced that the record that came up for consideration in that case was the duplicate of the intimation form. 4. S.10 (7) enjoins the Food Inspector to secure the presence of at least two persons at the time he takes the sample for analysis from any person selling the article. Though that section does not insist on the preparation of a memorandum when such action is taken, the requirement that the signatures should be taken of at least two persons who are called to witness the taking of sample, makes it clear that a record has to be prepared noting the action taken and the record has to be attested by the witnesses. The rules framed under the Act do not prescribe any form for such a memo and there is no reason for insisting that the signature of attestors has to be taken in the intimation form. There is also no indication in Form No. 6 that it should be attested by witnesses. 5. The learned counsel for the accused sought to place reliance upon the decision of the Punjab High Court in 1962 (2) Criminal Law Journal 779 to support the contention that the attestation has to be taken in Form 6 and not any other record. 5. The learned counsel for the accused sought to place reliance upon the decision of the Punjab High Court in 1962 (2) Criminal Law Journal 779 to support the contention that the attestation has to be taken in Form 6 and not any other record. In that case the learned judges were dealing with a memo which only recited that the sample of milk was divided into three parts and sealed in three bottles and it is in that connection that it was observed that: "That is not the sort of memo which is required to be prepared under Sub-Section (7) of S.10 and since no forms for memo are prescribed under S.10 (1) read with Sub-Section (7) and S.11 a composite memo relating to the taking of the sample, its division into three parts, and handing over of one of such parts to the person from whom the sample is taken, would meet the requirements of law if it is attested by two persons." In this case Ext. P-3 is such a composite memo containing all the requisite information. 6. The order of acquittal is hence unsustainable and has only to be set aside. The judgment of the trial court is restored and the first accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and the second accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 35/-or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three weeks. The fine will be paid within a month from this date. Allowed.