JUDGMENT - R.K. JOSHI, J.:---Respondent No. 1--Dinanath Kashinath, was discharged by the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, on 4th June, 1973. The order is impugned by the State. 2. According to the prosecution, Food Inspector Mr. S.J. Sambre, visited the shop of respondent No. 1 on 23rd September, 1973 and purchased 750 mls. of cows boiled milk. On observing the formalities, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who found it was adulterated as it contained 28.2% extraneous water. On obtaining, sanction he was prosecuted for offence punishable under section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. 3. The prosecution examined panch Hantsaj Devsi and the Food Inspector, who produced eight documents, on which the prosecution intended to rely. The panch did not support the prosecution. On the other hand, he made a categorical statement in examination-in-chief to the effect that he knew nothing about the case. No attempt was made to get this witness declared hostile or to examine other witness. 4. Next witness examined was the Food Inspector, who opened his statement in telling the Court that accused No. 1 (respondent No. 1) was present at the shop when he visited it and on disclosing his identity he purchased 700 mls. of buffalos boiled milk by paying Rs. 1.75 ps. He issued a notice Form No. 6 and obtained the signature of accused No. 1. Similarly, one of the samples was given to accused No. 1 for which another receipt was obtained. A few questions were put to him suggesting that he had made no purchase from accused No. 1, but he turned down every suggestion. 5. May it be noted here that accused No. 1 Dinanath is the owner and the licence stands in his name. His mother Rukminibai seems to be present when the Food Inspector visited the shop, but for reasons better, known to the prosecution, which was initiated at the instance of the Food Inspector, the name of Rukminibai came to be dropped and the case proceeded against accused No. 1 Dinanath alone. 6. On the evidence referred to in the foregoing paragraphs, the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate observed that the panch had not supported the prosecution and although there was a challenge to the evidence of the Food Inspector, no evidence was adduced to corroborate his words. 6. On the evidence referred to in the foregoing paragraphs, the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate observed that the panch had not supported the prosecution and although there was a challenge to the evidence of the Food Inspector, no evidence was adduced to corroborate his words. Therefore, he discharged accused No. 1. 7. From the very complaint and the other documents, produced by the Food Inspector it would be quite clear that what he had purchased was cows boiled milk and that too from the mother Rukminibai. All the receipts were given to Rukminibai and her thumb impressions were obtained. This is evident from the documents produced by the prosecution, on which it intended to rely. In the face of these documents and his own assertion in the complaint that he had purchased cows boiled milk, the Food Inspector S.J. Sambre had the audacity to tell the Court that he had purchased buffaloss boiled milk and had obtained every documents, which were likely to incriminate the accused from accused No. 1. It is manifest from his statement that he has spoken with scant regard for the truth and his entire testimony runs counter to the written record. The panch has not at all supported the prosecution. There may be considerable truth in the version of accused No. 1 that he was not at all present when the Food Inspector visited his shop. 8. On his evidence, I am constrained to observe, not only the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate was justified in discharging the accused, but this is a fit case in which he should have accorded sanction to prosecute the Food Inspector, S.J. Sambre, for making intentionally false statement on oath. I do not know why the learned Magistrate refrained from such a measure. Just as adulteration is a menace to the society, the Food Inspectors by their own conduct and indifferent approach to such cases prove nuisance to the dealers, and their conduct certainly needs a purge. I would strongly recommend the authorities of the Corporation to scrutinise the conduct of this Food Inspector and to take such suitable action as they deem proper. Left to myself, I would only add that such a Food Inspector does not deserve to remain in service. 9. I would have taken the alternative steps of according a sanction to prosecute him for perjury. Left to myself, I would only add that such a Food Inspector does not deserve to remain in service. 9. I would have taken the alternative steps of according a sanction to prosecute him for perjury. I hope the corporation would meet the justice by taking departmental action against him. A copy of the judgment be sent to the Municipal Commissioner for necessary action against the Food Inspector. 10. Rule discharged. -----