JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - This is an appeal by the Health Officer, Municipal Board, Moradabad against the acquittal of the opposite party Shiva Charan for an offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the 1st Class Magistrate, Moradabad. Sri H.S. Joshi has appeared in support of this appeal. I have gone through the evidence on record. 2. The prosecution case is that the Food Inspector had seen Shiva Charan selling milk at a about 10 a.m. on 20-8-1969 at Buddhi Bazar, Moradabad. The milk was mixed half cow milk and half buffalo milk. The Inspector purchased the sample of milk from the accused opposite party No. 1. He gave a receipt Ex. Ka. 2 for the same. The sample of milk was distributed equally in three phials. One such phial was given to the accused for which a receipt Ex. Ka. 3 was executed by him. One of the samples was sent for the report of the public Analyst. The said report Ex. Ka. 3 disclosed that the sample was deficient in non-fatty solids to the extent of 13%. Thereafter, the opposite party was prosecuted for an offence under section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act. He has been acquitted as mentioned above. 3. I have perused carefully the statement of the Food Inspector H.S. Saraswati (P.W. 1) as also the statement of Waziri Lal (P.W.2). I have also carefully read the statements of the three defence witnesses namely Hazari Lal (D.W.1), Shiva Charan (D.W.2) and Dharampal (D.W.3). The case for the defence is that the milk which was being carried by the accused was not meant for sale but was being brought by the accused to the house of Dharampal for his ailing wife. 4. From a perusal of the statement of the Food Inspector it is clear that he had not seen the accused selling milk to any body. He is also not aware as to how much milk was being carried by the accused. There is no document on the record which may indicate the quantity of milk carried by the accused the sample of which was taken. On the other hand, from the statements of defence witnesses it is quite clear that the quantity of milk was just one Lota and that this was being brought for the ailing wife of Dharam pal by the accused. On the other hand, from the statements of defence witnesses it is quite clear that the quantity of milk was just one Lota and that this was being brought for the ailing wife of Dharam pal by the accused. I have no reason to disbelieve the statements of the defence witnesses in the absence of any evidence to the contrary being produced by the prosecution. If the accused intended to sell the milk which he was carrying he would certainly not have carried a small quantity of one Lota. We would normally expect a sailer of milk to have much larger quantity than one Lota for purposes of sale. I am not thus satisfied that the milk which was being carried by the accused on the date and time in question of which a sample is alleged to have been taken by the Inspector was for purposes of sale. The defence version appears to be correct that it was being brought by the accused for Dharampal's sick wife. 5. From a careful consideration of Ex. Ka 2 and Ka 3 find that these are very suspicious documents. The Food Inspector has stated in cross-examination that he had only asked the accused to sign. If that was so there is no reason why his thumb impression should also appear on the the receipts. It is noticeable that even though the word I.T.I. has been written in English which on the case of the prosecution has been written by the Food Inspector, yet the word Shiva Charan has not been written in English there. No evidence has been produced to show that these thumb impressions are the thumb impressions of Shiva Charan. Such evidence was necessary in the face of the denial by the accused of the sale of the sample of milk to the Food Inspector. I find that ground No. 3 has been taken to the effect that the sale to the Food Inspector amounts to sale within the provisions of Food Adulteration Act. I fail to understand the applicability of this section of the facts and circumstances of the present case. I have found above that the milk was not being taken for sale but was just a small quantity of one Lota which had been conveyed by the accused for the ailing wife of Dharampal. I fail to understand the applicability of this section of the facts and circumstances of the present case. I have found above that the milk was not being taken for sale but was just a small quantity of one Lota which had been conveyed by the accused for the ailing wife of Dharampal. Even assuming the statement of the Food-Inspector to be correct, I am of opinion that he has no business to forcibly intercept a person who was not carrying milk for sale but for his private use and take a sample therefore for purposes of prosecution under the Food Adulteration Act. The accused has denied that he had sold or received any consideration for the milk of which a sample is alleged to have been taken. 6. On a careful analysis of Ex. Ka. 2 I find that the details which have been filled in that receipt are not in the handwriting of the person who has signed as Shiva Charan. The two writings are clearly different. I cannot therefore, place any reliance upon Ex. Ka 2 in proof of the sale of milk by the accused to the Food Inspector. As I have mentioned above, this is a very suspicious document. In these circumstances I hold that the sale of milk to the Food Inspector has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the accused-opposite party has been rightly acquitted of the offence under section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act by the Magistrate concerned. There is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.