JUDGMENT M. Hamid Hussain, J. - This appeal has been filed by the State against the order of the acquittal, dated 22.11.1971, passed by Sri M.P. Jain, City Magistrate, Mathura. 2. Respondent Uttam Chand was prosecuted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the allegations that on 3.2.1971 at about 11.30 a m. he was found selling and exposing for sale buffalo milk without any licence at Uttam Restaurant in Jawahar Hat, Mathura and thereby contravened rule 50 framed under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. A sample of the milk was taken by the Food Inspector, Sri Prem Prakash Tewari (P.W. 1) in the presence of Naik Jaswant Singh Pahariya (P.W. 2) and Tuhi Ram of Village Gausna (P.W. 3) and the sample of the milk, which was taken on payment of 80 Paise, was sent to the public analyst who found the sample to be deficient in fat contents by about 70 percent and non-fatty solid contents by about 23 per cent. 3. The respondent pleaded not guilty and contended that he neither sold the milk nor offered milk for sale from which the sample of milk was taken. According to the respondent the milk which was taken for sample was meant for domestic consumption. In support of the prosecution case, three witness namely, Sri Prem Prakash Tewari, Food Inspector (P.W. 1), Jaswant Singh(P.W. 2) and Tuhi Ram (P.W. 3) were examined. In support of the defence six witnesses were examined, namely, Dr. Devi Das, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (D.W. I), Shyam Lal (D.W. 2), respondent Uttam Chand examined himself as D.W. 3, Daulat Ram (D.W. A), Mohan Lal (D.W. 5) and Udaia Ram (D.W.6). 4. The trial court on assessment of evidence found the prosecution witnesses namely, Jaswant Singh (P.W 2) and Tuhi Ram (P.W. 3) doubtful at the time and place. The trial court further found the testimony of the defence witnesses to be more reliable. Accordingly, the trial court acquitted Uttam Chand respondent. 5. Learned State Counsel in support of the trial court was not justified in acquitted the respondent and ought to have relied upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In the additional grounds, which have been filed in the appeal on behalf of the State, the objection has been taken to the trial court not accepting the prosecution witnesses and placing reliance on the testimony of the defence witnesses. In the additional grounds, which have been filed in the appeal on behalf of the State, the objection has been taken to the trial court not accepting the prosecution witnesses and placing reliance on the testimony of the defence witnesses. It is open to the trial court to assess the evidence adduced by the State as well as by the defence. Learned State Counsel has not been able to place any material from the evidence of the defence witnesses to show that the trial court was not justified in placing reliance on their testimony. The State Counsel has also not been able to point out any material on the record that the trial court was not justified in discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and holding that the presence of Jaswant Singh (P.W. 2) and Tuhi Ram (P.W. 3) at the time of the alleged taking of the sample of the milk was doubtful. 6. There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.