JUDGMENT : C.V. Rane, J. The Food Inspector, Shivram Kashiram, purchased 606 m.ls. of boiled tea from respondent No. 1 Ahmedkhan who is the servant of respondent No. 2 Gaurishanker, at platform No. 1 of Godhra railway station. He had informed him that he was buying tea for the purpose of getting it analysed by a Public Analyst. The tea was divided in three equal parts each of which was put in a separate bottle. The bottles were corked and sealed in the presence of the panch witness. One of the bottles was given to respondent No. 1, whereas, the second bottle was sent to the Public Analyst at Baroda. After the report of the Public Analyst was received, the Food Inspector filed a complaint against both the aforesaid respondents, hereinafter referred to as the accused. According to the report of Public Analyst, the tea was adulterated. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Railways), Godhra, has acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under section 16 (1)(a)[i][ii] read with section 7[1] [v] of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and being aggrieved by the above order, the State has come in appeal to this court. 2. According to the Food Inspector, Shivram, he had purchased 606 m.ls. of boiled lea from accused No.1 on 27-8-1972 in the presence of the panch witness Fakirchand. The tea was divided into three equal parts each of which was put in a separate bottle. All the bottles were corked and sealed in the presence of the panch. He has also made it clear that 19 drops of formalin were added to each of the bottles. According to the report of the Public Analyst, the sample sent to him was adulterated. The main question is, however, whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the tea in question was purchased from accused No. 1 who, as observed above, is the servant of accused No. 2 Gaurishanker who has a tea-stall at the railway station. The Food Inspector has not staled anything in his examination-in-chief about the presence of accused No. 2 at the time when the tea was purchased. In his cross-examination, he has stated that accused No. 2 was also present. The Food Inspector has not staled anything in his examination-in-chief about the presence of accused No. 2 at the time when the tea was purchased. In his cross-examination, he has stated that accused No. 2 was also present. It is, however, surprising to find that even though, according to the Food Inspector, accused No. 2 was present, signature on the receipt was obtained from accused No. 1. It is not clear as to why he did not obtain the signature of accused No. 2 especially when he was the owner of the tea-stall at the railway station. The above circumstances give rise to a reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the version of the Food Inspector that accused No. 2 was also present at the time when the tea was purchased by him from accused No. 1. 3. Now, according to the accused, no tea was purchased from them. The panch witness Fakirchand doc not corroborate the evidence of the Food Inspector. Fakirchand has deposed that the Food Inspector had told him that he had purchased the tea at platform No. 2 from Gaurishanker and Sons. According to the Food Inspector, however, the tea was purchased at platform No. 1. It does not appear from his evidence that the Food Inspector had purchased the tea in his presence. It is further surprising to find that the panch witness does not say that the tea was purchased from accused No. 1. On the contrary, he says that the Food Inspector brought the sample from two or three vessels lying on the bench opposite to his office. He has also deposed that accused No. 2 was not present at that time, but his servant Laxman was present. Thus, according to the panch witness even accused No. 1 was not present. After sometime, he returned to his office and he was again called by the Food Inspector. When he went there again, he signed the panchnama. He has stated in his cross-examination that the statement in the panchnama that Gaurishanker, that is accused No. 2. was present was already incorporated in the panchnama before he went there and he has further made it clear that accused No. 2 was not present thereat all. When he went there again, he signed the panchnama. He has stated in his cross-examination that the statement in the panchnama that Gaurishanker, that is accused No. 2. was present was already incorporated in the panchnama before he went there and he has further made it clear that accused No. 2 was not present thereat all. Fakirchand has not 'been declared to be a hostile witness and hence his evidence cannot be discarded and in that case, it would not be safe to hold that the tea was purchased by the Food Inspector from accused No. 1 in the presence of accused No. 2, only on the basis of the evidence of the Food Inspector. This shows that there is no reasonable ground for interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.