JUDGMENT T.S. Misra, J. - On March 7, 1971 Hari Magan Behari Lal, Food Inspector, took samples of cow milk from a container of the respondent on payment of 75 paise and obtained receipt Ext. 2 from the respondent. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst who in his report Ext. Ka. 5 stated that the milk was adulterated. The respondent was, therefore, prosecuted under section 7/16(1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The respondent pleaded not guilty. He denied that he was selling milk. He, however, admitted that the sample was taken from his container forcibly and his signatures on Exts. Ka-1 and Ka-2 were also obtained forcibly. He also denied that he was paid any sum by the Food Inspector. His contention was that he was carrying three kilos of milk for his maternal uncle Pritam Singh who was residing in Moti Katra and that when the sample was taken the milk was not sold or exposed for sale. On behalf of the prosecution the Food Inspector Hari Magan Behari Lal (P.W. 1), Nathu Ram (P.W.2) and Om Prakash Bharadwaz (P.W.3) were examined. The accused examined Pritam Singh, his maternal uncle, in support of his defence. The court below found material contradiction in the statements of P.W. I, the Food Inspector, and Nathu Ram (P.W.2) and concluded that the Food Inspector had not disclosed correct facts. It also found that no attempt was made by the Food Inspector to call independent witnesses to be present at the time when he took action under the provisions of the said Act. The court below observed that "the statements of P.W.l and P.W.2 were so full of contradictions that no faith could be reposed on the prosecution story." In the circumstances the respondent was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Against that decision Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra has come up on appeal. 3. On behalf of the appellant it was urged that having admitted that the Food Inspector obtained from him the sample of milk, the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses for the prosecution were wholly immaterial. It was urged that the sale of the milk to the Food Inspector amounted to sale within the meaning of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and as the sample was found to be adulterated, the court below erred in acquitting the respondent. It was urged that the sale of the milk to the Food Inspector amounted to sale within the meaning of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and as the sample was found to be adulterated, the court below erred in acquitting the respondent. There is no manner of doubt that the samples of milk were taken by the Food Inspector from the container of the respondent. The report of the public Analyst bears out that the sample was deficient in fatty solids by about 13 per cent but what has been found from the evidence on record is that the Food Inspector has not disclosed the facts correctly before the court. The Food Inspector deposed before the court below that the respondent was going towards Sadar Bhatti and was stopped. The Food Inspector in his examination in-chief had deposed that he checked the accused selling and exposing for sale the milk from his container kept on a cycle. However, in the cross-examination he stated that the respondent was going towards Sadar Bhatti and was stopped. Nathu Ram (P.W.2) deposed that the respondent was going towards Sadar Bhatti and that the respondent, on being asked, stopped there without any demur. The statement of the Food Inspector that the respondent was checked selling and exposing for sale the milk from his container kept on a cycle, was, therefore found to be incorrect. Again the Food Inspector deposed that he had been provided by the department the measuring bottle and that the milk was measured with it. This fact was denied by Nathu Ram (P.W 2), who stated that the milk was taken out with a dibba. Further (P.W. 1), the Pood Inspector, stated that no milk-vendor carrying the container passed through that way when the sample was taken from the respondent. Nathu Ram again contradicted the Food Inspector in this behalf. The Food Inspector also stated that he had called the shop-keepers through Nathu Ram but this fact was also denied by Nathu Ram in his cross-examination. The Food Inspector was unable to state as to how Sahab Singh signed on Ext. Ka-3 whereas Nathu Ram (P.W. 2) had stated that Sahab Singh, a public witness, saw the full proceedings. Such evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, which was so full of contradictions, could not, therefore, inspire confidence and the court below was correct in not placing reliance on the same. 4. Ka-3 whereas Nathu Ram (P.W. 2) had stated that Sahab Singh, a public witness, saw the full proceedings. Such evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, which was so full of contradictions, could not, therefore, inspire confidence and the court below was correct in not placing reliance on the same. 4. The court below also found that no attempt was made to procure independent persons to be present at the time when the Food Inspector took samples under section 10 of the Act. It is by now a settled law that the provisions of section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are mandatory and that while taking action under any of the provisions mentioned in the sub-sections, the Food Inspector must call one or more independent persons to be present at the time when such action is to be taken. It is however, not a law that regardless of all circumstances, the non-presence of one or more independent persons at the relevant time would vitiate the trial or conviction. The obligation which section 10(7) casts on the Food Inspector is to `call' one or more persons to be present when he takes action. See Shri Ram Labhaya v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, 1975 F.A.J. 253. The Food Inspector must, therefore, `call' one or more persons to be present while he takes action under any of the provisions mentioned in section 10(7)of the said Act. In the instant case the court below found that no attempt was made by the Food Inspector to call one or more independent persons. The Food Inspector stated that no person of the public saw the entire proceedings. He further stated that he called the neighbouring shop keepers through Nathu Ram to be present at the time while he was taking the action. He was, however, contradicted by Nathu Ram (P.W.2), who clearly deposed that many milk-vendors containing containers passed through that road at the relevant time but they were not stopped for the purposes of witnessing the action being taken by the Food Inspector and that he was not sent to call the neighbouring shop-keepers. He also stated that five or ten persons of the public saw the entire proceedings In view of these contradictory statement, the court below was correct in holding that the Food Inspector did not make any attempt to procure the presence of the independent witnesses. He also stated that five or ten persons of the public saw the entire proceedings In view of these contradictory statement, the court below was correct in holding that the Food Inspector did not make any attempt to procure the presence of the independent witnesses. In such circumstances the prosecution could not be said to be relieved of its obligation to cite independent witnesses. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed