JUDGMENT H.L. Kapoor, J. - This is an appeal by Nagar Swasthya Adhikari against the acquittal of the accused recorded by Shri D. S. Mathur, Magistrate First Class, Agra on the 14th April, 1972. 2. According to the complainant, Shri P. C. Saxena, Food Inspector, found the respondent Dauji Ram, selling milk of cow from a bucket in Gandhi Nagar on the 14th September, 1971 at 7-30 O'clock in the evening A notice was given by the Food Inspector under Rule 12 and receipt Ex Kal was obtained from the accused bearing his signature. The milk purchased by the Food Inspector was 660 ml. on payment of 75 paise. The milk as usual, was divided into three equal phials, one phial was given to the accused one was sent to the Public Analyst and the third was retained in the office of the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Agra. It was also stated that 18 drops of formalin were added to each phial. The Public Analyst reported that the milk was deficient in non-fatty solids by about 22 per cent and was adulterated. He was accordingly tried under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. The accused stated in his defence that he has no doubt a shop in Gandhi Nagar, but it was closed on the 14th September, 1971, when the sample is said to have been taken from him by the Food Inspector. He further stated that he had only one kilogram milk, which he had taken from one Chokhe Ghosi, for his own consumption at his house. He further stated that no notice was given to him; that his sample was taken, but no payment for it was made. He however, admitted his signature on Ex. Ka. l,Ka. 2 and Ka. 4. He also attributed his false implication in the case due to party-bandi amongst the shop-keepers. 4. Two witnesses, namely, Chokhe Lal D.W. 1 and D.D. Jauhari D.W. 2 were examined in support of the defence. Chokhe Lal deposed that on the 14th September. 1971 in the evening at about 7-30 O'clock, the accused had taken milk from him stating that his children were ailing and that he was taking one kilogram milk for them. 4. Two witnesses, namely, Chokhe Lal D.W. 1 and D.D. Jauhari D.W. 2 were examined in support of the defence. Chokhe Lal deposed that on the 14th September. 1971 in the evening at about 7-30 O'clock, the accused had taken milk from him stating that his children were ailing and that he was taking one kilogram milk for them. He further clarified in his cross-examination that one day prior to the date on which the milk was taken by the accused from him the shop of the accused was closed. 5. Similarly, D.D. Jauhari D.W. 2 deposed that the Food Inspector had taken sample of milk from the accused at about 7.30 O'clock in the evening of 14th September, 1971; that the shop of the accused was closed one day prior to it; that he had informed the Food Inspector that the milk which he was taking was not for purposes of sale, but it was for the use of his ailing children. He further stated that the Food Inspector did not listen or paid any heed to what was stated by the accused and forcibly took the sample of milk from him without paying anything. Nothing particular could come out in the statement of these defence witnesses to discredit them in any manner and the learned Magistrate accepted the version as given by them. 6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined three witnesses, namely, Sri P. G. Saxena, Food Inspector (P. W. 1), Babulal (P. W. 2); and Shri Bhimsen (P.W. 4) as the eye-witnesses of the occurrences. Prakash Chandra Agarwal (P.W. 3), a Licence Clerk, deposed that the accused was issued a licence from 13th May, 1971 to 31st August, 1972 for selling milk and milk products. 7. The court below, after considering the evidence on record and not placing reliance on the statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution, but accepting the defence version arrived at the finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. He accordingly acquitted him having given the benefit of doubt. 8. 7. The court below, after considering the evidence on record and not placing reliance on the statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution, but accepting the defence version arrived at the finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. He accordingly acquitted him having given the benefit of doubt. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, has mainly stressed upon one point that the Food Inspector having taken the sample of milk from the accused and receipt for payment being made to the accused in order to show that the price of the milk was paid to the accused, the sale of the sample was proved and it being found adulterated, the accused was wrongly acquitted by the court below. This contention of the learned counsel, however, loses sight of the fact that apart from the fact that the witnesses examined on behalf of the defence had stated that the accused had informed the Food Inspector that the milk, which he was taking was meant for his ailing children and not for sale, the Food Inspector himself had not the courage to deny this fact when it was put to him in his cross-examination. There is a contradiction between the statement of the Food Inspector and Babu Lal with regard to the milk being taken from the accused, one having stated that it was taken from the bucket whereas the other stated that it was taken from a Bhagona It has also been amply proved from the statement of the defence witnesses and not controverted on behalf of the Food Inspector that the shop of the accused was closed on the day the sample is said to have been taken from the accused. In this state of affairs the learned Magistrate could not be said to have arrived at a perverse finding in not accepting the case of Food Inspector and having acquitted the accused. Taking into consideration the fact that it is an appeal filed by the complainant against acquittal no interference can be made in a case where the findings, as stated earlier, have not been found to be perverse. In this view of the matter, the accused was rightly acquitted and no interference can be made. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.