JUDGMENT M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. This is an appeal by a Food Inspector of the Calicut City Corporation against acquittal of the respondent in a charge under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Food Inspector purchased ice-cream from the Ist accused at the Kerala Halva Stores and Cool Bar belonging to the 2nd accused. Ext. P-3, the report of the Public Analyst, shows that the ice-cream was sub-standard and therefore adulterated within the meaning of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The District Magistrate however acquitted the accused finding that the prosecution failed to prove the 1st accused to be an employee of the 2nd accused and that the purchase was made from the shop of the 2nd accused. Hence this appeal. 2. The Food Inspector has sworn categorically, and her report, Ext. P-2, attested by the 1st accused is express that, the purchase of the ice-cream was from the Kerala Halva Stores and Cool Bar. The 2nd accused, in his statement under section 342, Crl.P.C., has admitted the said concern to belong to him. It is then clear that the ice-cream concerned was purchased by the Food Inspector from the 2nd accused's shop. The evidence is also clear that the 1st accused had sold the ice-cream to the Food Inspector. Whether he is a regular employee of the 2nd accused or not is of very little consequence here. When the Food Inspector went to the shop ice-cream was available for sale there and the 1st accused sold it to her. In the circumstances, the findings, on both counts by the District Magistrate do not appear to me right. 3. Counsel for the accused points out that the sampling was not made in this case in this accordance with sub-section (7) of section 10 of the Act. That section reads: "10 (i) A Food Inspector shall have power” (a) to take sample of any article of food from (i) any person selling such articles.. (7) Where the Food Inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1) he shall call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures." The said sub-section (7) before its amendment by Act XLIX of 1964 ran thus: "Where the Food Inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1). he shall, as far as possible call not less than two persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take their signatures. " The deletion of the expression "as far as possible" by the amendment of 1964 shows that the Legislature meant the provision to be mandatory. The fact that the offence of food adulteration carries imperatively a drastic sentence of "imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than 6 months but which may extend to 6 years and with a fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1,000" shows the importance of the safeguard provided by the sub-section to assure impartiality on the part of the detectors of such offences. Even before the amendment, when the provision was not so mandatory in expression, it had been held that the person required to attest a sampling by a Food Inspector should be "independent and disinterested', not susceptible to influence of the Food Inspector. "The evidence of Raunaq Ram P.W. 2, and Hans Raj P.W. 3, regarding the taking of sample does not inspire confidence. Raunaq Ram is a milk seller who was also apprehended at the crossing, but no sample of milk was taken from him, and instead he was made a witness against the respondent. Hans Raj P.W. 3 is admittedly a subordinate of the Food Inspector. When the law enjoins that the sample be taken in the presence of two persons, it clearly contemplates that the evidence relating to the taking of sample must be above board, and the witnesses in whose presence the sample is taken should be independent and disinterested so, as to inspire confidence. In the present case, we however ever, find that both the witnesses associated with the taking of the, sample were under the influence of the Food Inspector." (A.I.R. 1962 Punjab 548). The Legislature must have been aware of this judicial interpretation of the word "person" in sub-section (7) of section 10 at the time they amended the subjection in 1964. In this case, the two witnesses to the taking of sample by the Food Inspector were masteries subordinate to the Food Inspector. The salient safeguard provided by sub-section (7) of section 10 not having been observed in reality the taking of sample in this case has to be held to have been done irregularly by the Food Inspector. In this case, the two witnesses to the taking of sample by the Food Inspector were masteries subordinate to the Food Inspector. The salient safeguard provided by sub-section (7) of section 10 not having been observed in reality the taking of sample in this case has to be held to have been done irregularly by the Food Inspector. When the basis for the prosecution is found to have been irregular, it cannot be said that a compelling reason exists for the Appellate Court to reverse the order of acquittal passed by the court of trial. The appeal fails and is dismissed.