JUDGMENT - PADHYE, J.:---The present respondent Ishwarprasad and one Motilal were tried for an offence under section 16(1)(a) read with section 8(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Rules 5-1-11-01-11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Original accused No. 2 Motilal was absent as he could not be served and his case was therefore separated and the trial proceeded only as against original accused No. 1 Ishwarprasad Nathimal. 2. The prosecution was in respect of adulterated milk which was found in the shop belonging to respondent Ishwarprasad run in the name of Shri Arya Dairy Farm at Girgaon, Bombay. On 20-4-1974 at about 10.30 a.m. one Gangadhar Waman Ambordekar, Food Inspector, D Ward, Bombay Municipal Corporation accompanied by one Dhansingh Ramsingh visited the shop of the respondent-accused and purchased on payment 700 ml. Litres of buffaloes boiled milk for an amount of Rs. 1.40 p. after disclosing his identity as a food Inspector. According to the said Gangadhar, he divided the sample into three equal parts, packed them, labelled them and sealed them in three separate containers after adding adequate quantity of formalin to each one of them. This, according to him, was done in the presence of the accused as well as in the presence of panch witness Dhansing. One of the samples was given to the accused and the other was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. It was found on examination that the sample did not confirm to the test laid down for unadulterated milk and it was found that there was a contravention of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with the Rules thereunder. Both the accused therefore came to be tried before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaon, Bombay. As stated earlier the case of the original accused No. 2 was separated as he could not be traced and the case proceeded only as against original accused No. 1. 3. The prosecution examined the Food Inspector Gangadhar Ambordekar and panch witness Dhansingh. Dhansing had first denied knowledge of every thing. He even denied that he was called by the Food Inspector at any place. After showing him his signature on the panchnama, he admitted his signature and then he recollected that the was called to the milk shop by the Food Inspector at Girgaon Road and he was given milk there to drink. He even denied that he was called by the Food Inspector at any place. After showing him his signature on the panchnama, he admitted his signature and then he recollected that the was called to the milk shop by the Food Inspector at Girgaon Road and he was given milk there to drink. He was asked to sign certain papers which he did and he identified his signatures of in the documents and further admitted the accuse No. 1 who was alone in the dock in the Court was present. According to the learned Magistrate, the evidence of Gangadhar, food Inspector, was not corroborated by panch witness Dhansingh as he did not speak of the sale of the milk by the vendor to the Food Inspector and the samples being taken into three bottles and they being labelled and sealed. The learned Magistrate took the view that since the evidence of the Food Inspector was not corroborated by the independent witness, viz. the panch, the conviction of the accused would not be based only on the sold testimony of the Food Inspector. In this view of the matter, he discharged the accused before him, who is now respondent No. 1 in this appeal. Against this order, the State had filed this appeal against both the original accused. The name of original accused No. 2 was, however, deleted by order dated 23-8-1974 and this appeal is only against original accused No. 1 Ishwarprasad Nathimal. 4. Accused No. 1 is a licence holder for the milk shop which he has been conducting. Original accused No. 2 Motilal Shivpoojan was said to be his servant. The sample of the milk which was sent to the Public Analyst has been found to be adulterated inasmuch as the samples contained 18.09% extraneous water and fat deficiency of 27.08%. The Public analyst opined that the said sample was adulterated under section 2(1)(c) and 2(1)(d) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rule 5-A. 11.01.11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 as amended upto date. The Food Inspector Gangadhar has in his evidence given the steps he had taken after he had purchased the milk from the accused. The Food Inspector Gangadhar has in his evidence given the steps he had taken after he had purchased the milk from the accused. The learned Magistrate accepts the position that the evidence of the Food Inspector Gangadhar Ambordekar is in terms of the prosecution case and it appears from the judgment that it this evidence were accepted there is a case against the accused under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. However, according to the learned Magistrate, the independent panch witness Dhansing has not supported the Food Inspector and there being no corroboration, according to the learned Magistrate, to the evidence of the Food Inspector, the conviction could not be based only on the evidence of the Food Inspector. It is on this view that the learned Magistrate has discharged the accused-respondent in this case. 5. Witness Dhansing has admitted his signature on the panchanamas which were prepared in the milk shop itself. In fact in his evidence he has stated that he had gone to the milk shop on being called by the Food Inspector at the Girgaon Road and he was given milk to drink there and he drank it also. He further admits that he signed certain papers in the milk shop itself wherein the accused was present. It is true that in his evidence he has not given all the steps which the Food Inspector had taken from the time of the purchase of the milk from the vendor till the time of sealing the three different samples taken in three different bottles. But the Food Inspector, however, has stated what has been done by him at that time. It is not necessary as a matter of law that in each and every case the evidence of the Food Inspector must be corroborated in every material particular and without such corroboration that evidence alone cannot form the basis of conviction. It depends upon the quality of the evidence of the Food Inspector. If that evidence is accepted then in that case the conviction would be based on that even if there be no corroboration to that evidence. The law has been laid down in (Babulal v. State of Gujarat)1, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1277. It has been laid down that the evidence of the Food Inspector alone, if believed, can be relied on for proving that the samples were taken as required by law. The law has been laid down in (Babulal v. State of Gujarat)1, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1277. It has been laid down that the evidence of the Food Inspector alone, if believed, can be relied on for proving that the samples were taken as required by law. It has been further laid down that at the most Courts of fact may find it difficult in any particular case to rely on the testimony of the Food Inspector alone though we do not say that this result generally follows. The circumstances of each case will determine the extent of the weight to be given to the evidence of the Food Inspector and what in the opinion of the Court is the value of his testimony. 6. The learned Magistrate has not found to appreciation of the evidence of the Food Inspector that his testimony is unreliable or is one which cannot be accepted. He, however, without making proper appreciation of the evidence of the Food Inspector has as a matter of fact sought corroboration to that evidence and there being, in his view, no corroboration to the evidence of the Food Inspector, took the view that the accused was entitled to an acquittal. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be correct one. Accordingly the order of the learned Magistrate discharging the respondent originally accused No. 1 is erroneous and has to be set aside. Accordingly the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside and the case is sent back to the learned Magistrate for further enquiry into the matter in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed. 7. The respondent original accused No. 1 to appear before the learned Magistrate and furnish fresh bail. ------