JUDGMENT Chandra Prakash, J. - This is an appeal by the Municipal Board, Mainpuri against the order dated 22. 8. 1972 of Sri S.N. Gautam, Sub Divisional Megistrate, Mainpuri acquitting Krishna Murari Lal respondent of the charges under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The respondent, Krishan Murari Lal, was tried under section 7 read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the complaint of the Food Inspector Sri B.S. Siraudia (P.W. 1). The allegation against him were that the respondent on 7.2.1972 was found selling coconut and tea packets without having a licence as required by rules 30 of the P.F. Adulteration Rules, 1955 at Tahsil Chauraha district Mainpuri. The complaint was dated 10.2.1972. 3. On 28.6.1972 a charge was framed against the respondent. It appears that 17.7.1972 was the date fixed for the cross-examination of the Food Inspector Sri B.S. Sirandia (P.W. 1) under section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code but the Food Inspector did not appear till 21.8.1972 and the evidence was closed. The court below ignored the statement of the Food Inspector and acquitted the respondent on 22.7.1972. 4. Against the above order, Municipal Board, Mainpuri come up in appeal. Nobody appeared on behalf of Municipal Board, Mainpuri and I have heard that learned counsel for the respondent and came to the conclusion that the court below cannot be allowed to stand. 5. It appears from a perusal of the record that the statement of Sri B.S. Siraudia was recorded on 9.6.1972 and the charged was framed against the respondent on 28.6.1972. It further appears that the case was postponed to 17.7.1972 for the cross-examination of the Food Inspector under section 256 Cr. P.C. but he did not appear. The procedure adopted by the court below was not correct. The trial of the case commenced as a warrant case and in a warrant case the duty lies on the Magistrate to secure attendance of the complaint and his witnesses for further cross-examination. The record does not show that any step was taken by the court below to secure attendance either of the Food Inspector or any other witness. The court below was in error in acquitting the respondent on account of the absence of the Food Inspector. The record does not show that any step was taken by the court below to secure attendance either of the Food Inspector or any other witness. The court below was in error in acquitting the respondent on account of the absence of the Food Inspector. It was the duty of the court below itself to secure attendance of the witnesses. The matter has been considered by me in detail in Criminal Appeal No. 3096 of 1972 Municipal Board, Mainpuri v. Raja Ram. A copy of the Judgment in that case is on the record of this case. 6. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed and the order of acquittal passed by the court below is set aside and retrial of the respondent according to law is directed.