R. P. Khosla, Dua, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 34-Dot 1964 to 39-D of 1964. They arise from six different eases relating. to the. respondents. Since common questions of fact :and law were involved they were disposed of by the Court below-with one common judgment. ( 2 ) THE facts were short and simple. On 10th of March,, 1961 Hans Raj Sud, 0m Parkash Malhotra and Dina Nith, three Food Inspectors of Municipal Corporation, Delhi visited codown No. 558 of Messrs Ascharaj Ram, Shambhoo Ram and obtained samples of Hing which on Chemical analysis were found to be adulterated. That I d to the prosecution of the respondents, Ganga Ram-the salesman-and Ascharaj Ram the proprietor of the Firm Ascharaj Ram Shambhoo Ram under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi, on the evidence produced at the trial, came to the conclusion that r) o witness from the locality had been Joined and the inventories prepared by. each of the Inspectors were signed by the other two Food Inspectors intersigned. The witnesses, of respectability produced in defence pointed to the signatures of Ascharaj Ram having been obtained at his shop instead of at the godown as alleged and that not without purpose. Effort appears to have been to implicate the owner In. the result, the charge was no. t found proved and the respondents had been acquitted. Delhi State not being satisfied with, the order of acquittal dated 7th of April, 1962 of Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, has come up to this Court in the instant appeals. Notice issued to respondent Ganga Rain only: ( 3 ) WE were led through the material on the record and have also examined the findings of the learned Magistrate. We have no hesitation in concluding that the recoveries were tainted. Indications were that in their zeal to implicate Ascharaj Ram, the Food Inspectors, had, sometime subsequent to the alleged recoveries, the respective documents signed by Ascharaj Ram. Evidence of D, W. 2 D. W. 3 and D. W. 4 pointed to the documents Exhibit P. C. to P. C. /5 having been signed at his shop situated. in Gandhi Market and not at the godown, the spot of occurrence. Evidence of D, W. 2 D. W. 3 and D. W. 4 pointed to the documents Exhibit P. C. to P. C. /5 having been signed at his shop situated. in Gandhi Market and not at the godown, the spot of occurrence. Statements of the Food Inspectors to the effect that Ascharaj Ram had come to the godown before the sale of the Hing in question was effected, to -say the least, was untrue. Food Inspectors appeared not to have been satisfied in getting hold of Ganga Ram, a weighman, only and that perhaps was the reason to bring in Ascharaj Ram, the owner. ( 4 ) SECTION 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins on the prosecuting agency getting locality witnesses of indeperdent origin. That had not been done in the instant caes. Suggestion that the samples had been drawn from Ganga Ram accused, the weighman, under duress, could not in the set-up have been ruled out. In any event, the taints pointed out rendered the prosecution case infirm. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent had raised a legal objection also, namely, that the appeals by way of special leave under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as filed were not competent. The contention was that the complaint had been put in by Sham Sunder Mathur who would be deemed to be the complainant. . Municipal Corporation was not competent to file the instant appeals. It was Sham Sunder Mathur, the complainant, who alone could validly institute the instant proceedings Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagdish Lal and another, was cited in support of the contention. For the view We have taken on merits of these appeals, it is not necessary as at present advised to go into the legal Objection raised. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons that the investigation was not above-board the evidence of the Food Inspectors did not inspire confindence. The respondent was rightly acquitted. In the premises, interference in the impugned judgments is not called for. ( 7 ) THESE appeals. (Criminal Appeals Nos. 34-D to 39-D of 1964 ). therefore, fail and are dismissed.