JUDGMENT - G.N. VAIDYA, J.:---This is an appeal, filed by the State, against the order of acquittal, passed on February 13, 1974, by the learned Presidency Magistrate 36th Court, Bombay Central, Bombay in Case No. 257/FA of 1973, in which the respondent, Bhagat Bachia Ahir was prosecuted under section 2(i)(c) and 2(i)(d) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1958, on the allegation that on February 10, 1973 at 5.30 a.m. the accused sold unboiled milk, which contained 21.1% extraneous water and 8.9% fat deficiency, which was found adulterated by the Public Analyst. 2. The accused denied having committed the offence. The prosecution relied on the evidence of Chinnubhai Shah (P.W. 1) and Manohar Sawant, (P.W. 2) Food Inspector for showing that the Inspector visited new Milk Market at Khika Street, Bombay on February 10, 1973, at 5.30 a.m. and in the presence of independent witness Chinnubhai he demanded and purchased 700 ml. buffalos unboiled milk from accused No. 2, the respondent, who was present in the shop. 3. The learned Magistrate found that the so called independent witness did not go through the papers which he signed that day; and the papers were also not read out to him, as he admitted in the cross-examination, though he said that whatever was written mentioning 90 drops of medicine was not correct. He said that he signed because the Inspector told him to sign. The learned Magistrate further found that the Food Inspector was not a Food Inspector as defined in section 9 read with Rule 8 framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 4. The acquittal was also based on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish by independent evidence that the milk sold by the respondent was the milk, which was analysed by the Public Analyst in his report, Exhibit J. The learned Magistrate observed in para 10 of his judgment as follows :--- "The F.I. admits that he took other samples that day. Now, it is a little surprise to find out that this F.I. picket 67 samples that very morning many twilight dawn and all of the samples were properly divided and duly sealed. True, surprises are possible. But in that case the independent witness ought to have supported him. Here the independent witness Chinnubhai does not speak of any other samples. He speaks :--- There were 5 to 7 Inspectors at that time. True, surprises are possible. But in that case the independent witness ought to have supported him. Here the independent witness Chinnubhai does not speak of any other samples. He speaks :--- There were 5 to 7 Inspectors at that time. I do not know when this Inspector left." "It appears that there was a general round up and an omnibus collection of samples obviously expension of any activity warrants a lesser and lesser attention to details. The messenger who carried the sample to the P.A. ought to have been examined. It cannot be now decisively said that the P.A.s report purports to the very sample picket by the F.I. The prosecution story thus is weak and the accused will have to be exhonerated." Mr. Sawant, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that these remarks made by the learned Magistrate were uncalled for and the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the evidence of the Food Inspector and Chinnubhai was not enough to prove that the very milk which was purchased by the Food Inspector was sent to the Public Analyst and which is referred to in the report of the Public Analyst, Exhibit G. 5. The comment of Mr. Sawant on the remarks made by the learned Magistrate is without any substance because the learned Magistrate was justified in appreciating the conduct of the Food Inspector in the light of the so-called evidence of the independent witness Chinnubhai, observing, that in the absence of the evidence of the person who had himself carried the sample for analysis to the Public Analyst, the prosecution evidence must be considered not strong enough to prove the case of the prosecution. The learned Magistrate was also right in following the judgment of this Court in (The State of Maharashtra v. Revachand Sanmukhdas Ramchandani)1, Criminal Appeal No. 563 of 1972, with Criminal Application No. 270/72, decided on 8-11-73, 1977 U.C.R. (Bom.) 235, and in holding that in view of section 9 and the rules made thereunder the Food Inspector examined in this case was not a Food Inspector as required by law. The learned Magistrate, was therefore, fully justified in acquitting the accused. I find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal, which is just and legal. The accused though served with notice has not cared to appear. 6. Bail bond cancelled. -----