JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal from acquittal of the accused respondent Mangilal under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The accused was convicted by the Municipal Magistrate, Jodhpur and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal by the accused the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Jodhpur acquitted him. Hence this appeal by the State. 2. The prosecution case is that on March 23, 1967 PW I Girish Narain Mathur, went to the shop of the accused, who used to sell 'Ghee' and after disclosing his identity he inspected the tins of 'Ghee' lying at his shop. Suspecting the 'Ghee' contained in one of the tins to be adulterated, he took a sample of the 'Ghee' from that tin, and after completing the necessary formalities he prepared the memo Ex. P. 1. He purchased 450 Grams 'Ghee' and paid Rs. 4.50/- as is price to the accused. The sample of 'Ghee' taken by him was put into three bottles, which were duly sealed. The memo Ex. P. I as well as the labels on the bottles were signed by the accused as well as two Motbirs, viz. PW 2 Ganga Bishan and PW 3 Bhagirath. One of the samples was seat for analysis and on receipt of the report from the Public Analyst it was found that the 'Ghee' was adulterated inasmuch as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. The moisture contained in the sample was found to be 1.62 per cent, whereas it should have been .3 per cent. Consequently, the accused was prosecuted in the court of Municipal Magistrate, Jodhpur for offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. In support of the complaint three witnesses were examined, viz. PW 1 Girish Narain, PW 2 Ganga Bishan and PW 3 Bhagirath. Consequently, the accused was prosecuted in the court of Municipal Magistrate, Jodhpur for offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. In support of the complaint three witnesses were examined, viz. PW 1 Girish Narain, PW 2 Ganga Bishan and PW 3 Bhagirath. The accused denied having committed the offence and pleaded that the tin of 'Ghee' from which the sample was taken did not belong to him but belonged to one Roop Chand Sharma (DW 1), who had brought it to his shop to get examined by the accused, whether the 'Ghee' was of standard quality and at that time the Food Inspector happened to come to the shop and took a sample of 'Ghee' from that tin. In support of his defence the accused examined DW 1 Roop Chand Sharma. The trial Court convicted the accused, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge on appeal came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove satisfactorily that the `Ghee' in question belonged to the accused, inasmuch as the two motbir witnesses PW 2 Ganga Bishan and PW 3 Bhagirath had supported the defence version and the accused had also examined DW 1 Roop Chand Sharma in support of his defence. 4. It is beyond dispute that the 'Ghee' in question was adulterated inasmuch as moisture contents found in it were more than what is prescribed. The only point for determination, therefore, is whether the `Ghee' in question belonged to the accused PW 1 Girish Narain has given a forthright statement that the 'Ghee' was lying at the shop of the accused, that he had disclosed his identity to the accused and it was the accused, who had replied that the 'Ghee' contained in the tin was of she-buffalo and further that the price of the 'Ghee' was paid to the accused, who had signed the seizure memo Ex. P. 1 as well as the labels on the bottles in which the sample of the 'Ghee' was put. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of this witness to show that he had an animus to build a false case against the accused or that in any way he was prejudiced against the accused. In the course of the whole trial no suggestion has been made at any stage that PW I was a biased witness. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of this witness to show that he had an animus to build a false case against the accused or that in any way he was prejudiced against the accused. In the course of the whole trial no suggestion has been made at any stage that PW I was a biased witness. He has stated that the accused never told him at the time of taking of the sample that the 'Ghee' belonged to Roop Chand. We are, therefore, unable to discard the testimony of PW I solely on the ground that he is the Food Inspector and is in that capacity concerned with the prosecution. It may be relevant here, to point out that in the seizure memo Ex. P 1 no such plea of the accused is mentioned, nor there is anything to show that after the sample of the 'Ghee' had been taken, the accused protested before any authority that the 'Ghee' as a matter of fact belonged to DW 1 Roop Chand and he had been falsely involved in the case. We do not see any reason why PW 1 may not have prosecuted Roop Chand if, in fact, he had been told at the spot that the 'Ghee' as a matter of fact, belonged to Roop Chand and he had brought it at the shop of the accused merely to show it to the accused. The circumstances, therefore, indicate that the plea taken by the accused is an after-thought. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, has laid great stress on the evidence of the two Motbirs PW 2 Ganga Bishan and PW 3 Bhagirath, who have undoubtedly supported the defence. PW 2 Gaoga Bishan has stated that he, Bhaghatb, Mangilal accused, and one Roop Chand were present at the shop, at the time, when the Inspector took the sample and that the labels on the bottles, wherein the sample was taken, were got signed by himself, Bhagirath and the accused. He has further stated that one bottle containing the sample was handed over to the accused and the price of the 'Ghee' was also given to the accused. Thereafter, he says that Mangilal in his turn handed over the price to Roop Chand. He has further stated that one bottle containing the sample was handed over to the accused and the price of the 'Ghee' was also given to the accused. Thereafter, he says that Mangilal in his turn handed over the price to Roop Chand. It may be pointed out, here that no such question has been put to PW 1 Girish Narain, whether the price of the 'Ghee' was handed over to Roop Chand, we are wholly unable to understand why the accused should have signed the papers without protest and why the signature of Roop Chand was not obtained on the seizure memo as well as the bottle containing the sample, if in fact, it had been disclosed to the Inspector that the 'Ghee' belonged to him. We also do not see any reason why the Inspector would not have prosecuted and held Roop Chand liable. At any rate, no such consideration has been pointed out as may have prevailed with the Inspector to leave out the real culprit-Roop Chand, if he was really so, and rope man innocent person. 6. To the same extent, more or less, is the statement of PW 3, Bhagirath. He goes a step further and says that one of the bottles, in which the sample of 'Ghee' was taken was handed over by the accused to Roop Chand, even though he admits that the sample of 'Ghee' was taken by the Inspector from Mangilal. He also stated in cross examination that while he was examining the 'Ghee' the Inspector came to the shop and demanded sample from Mangilal and Mangilal said that the Ghee' did not belong to him, and that he would not be able to give a sample out of it, but the Inspector said that since the 'Ghee' was lying at his shop, he was bound to give the sample, as well as to take its price, and thereupon the accused gave the sample and also took the price. Unlike PW 2 this witness states that the accused refused to sign Ex P. 1 and Ex. P. 2 but on being asked by the Inspector that he had to sign it, he signed the same under compulsion. Thus, there are several contradictions in the statements of the two Motbirs, who have come forward to support the defence story. Unlike PW 2 this witness states that the accused refused to sign Ex P. 1 and Ex. P. 2 but on being asked by the Inspector that he had to sign it, he signed the same under compulsion. Thus, there are several contradictions in the statements of the two Motbirs, who have come forward to support the defence story. It is true that both these witnesses have not been got declared hostile by the prosecution, but we have to take into consideration the prosecution evidence as a whole and cannot brush aside the evidence of the Inspector, which appears to be truthful, straight-forward and forth-right. It appears to us that the two Motbirs have come forward to save the accused, and have, therefore, tried to support the defence version. 7. D.W. 1 Roop Chand states that when the Inspector began to take the sample, he told the Inspector that the 'Ghee' belonged to him and asked him what for he was taking the sample. He further states that the accused did not agree to give the sample, and begged to the Inspector not to take the sample, as the 'Ghee' belonged to Roop Chand. This witness further states that the Inspector gave Rs. 7.50/- to Mangilal as price of the 'Ghee' and that the amount of Rs. 7.50/- as well as one of the bottles containing the sample was handed over to him by the accused. In the course of cross-examinatiou he has admitted that he has not got any cash-memo pertaining to the purchase of 'Ghee' by him from the shop of Jasraj, and that he has no documentary proof in support of the purchase of 'Ghee' by hint. He admits that he never told Jasraj that the 'Ghee' which he had taken from his shop, and been found to be adulterated and a sample of the same had been taken by the Inspector. He also admits that he never told Jasraj that the 'Ghee' which he had taken from his shop, had been found to be adulterated and a sample of the same had been taken by the Inspector. He, also admits that he did not disclose, at the time of taking of the sample, that he had purchased the 'Ghee' from Jasraj. 8. The evidence of D.W. 1 appears to us to be completely unreliable. He, also admits that he did not disclose, at the time of taking of the sample, that he had purchased the 'Ghee' from Jasraj. 8. The evidence of D.W. 1 appears to us to be completely unreliable. He has faltered on a very material point regarding the price of the 'Ghee' and his conduct in not disclosing the name of Jasraj from whom he alleges to have purchased the 'Ghee' and thereafter not apprising Jasraj of this fact clearly leads to the conclusion thar he has come forward merely to save the accused, knowing full well that he would not be prosecuted in the case. 9. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence led in the case, we have come to the conclusion that the learned Municipal Magistrate was correct in accepting the Inspector's evidence and convicting the accused and the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur was not justified in setting aside the conviction. 10. Now, remains the question of sentence, learned Counsel for the accused-respondent submits that the incident took place as far back as on March 23, 1967, and thus twelve years have passed by. It is further stated that the accused is no more doing any business and is leading a retired life due to old age. It has also been brought to our notice that according to the state of law, existing in 1967, it was not compulsory to pass a minimum sentence of imprisonment. 11. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, was are of opinion that the interests of justice would be adequately met by sentencing the accused-respondent to a fine of Rs. 1000/- only. 12. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused-respondent and convict him under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence him to a fine of Rs. 1000/- only. One month's time is granted for depositing the fine. The fine may be deposited in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Jodhpur. In case the accused fails to deposit the fine, as directed above, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.Appeal allowed. *******