JUDGMENT - S.C. PRATAP, J.:---This acquittal appeal by the State discloses an unfortunate State of affairs. 2. The original prosecution was one under the provision of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the articles involved being vanaspati and edible oils; samples whereof were taken on 13th June, 1974 but complaint in which behalf was not filed till more than seventeen moths thereafter on 24th November, 1975. Defence of the accused consistent with the report of the Public Analyst (albeit contrary to the report of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta), was that the articles were not adulterated. In its support, the prosecution examined the Food Inspector one M.N. Torse and a panch one Amin Abdul Mohammed. Considering the evidence, the learned Magistrate held that the prosecution had failed to establish the impugned charge. The accused were consequently acquitted. 3. In this appeal against the said acquittal, I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. S.S. Parkar for the State. The accused are represented by their learned Advocates Mr. V.B. Ganatra, Mrs. L.V. Ganatra and Mr. N.M. Galla. 4. Reconsidering the evidence and going through the record as also the Judgment of the trial Magistrate, I have no hesitation in confirming the impugned acquittal. Indeed, the conduct of the Food Inspector in this case has been deplorable. It has generated from the trial Magistrate the following observation :--- "The Food Inspector when cross-examined in this case admitted that in Case No. 268/S he had examined one panch by name Shivaji B. Gaikwad. He further admitted that this was a bogus person whom he had examined under the name of Shivaji B. Gaikwad. As a matter of fact, as admitted by him, the defence itself examined the real Shivaji Gaikwad as a defence witness. These admissions of the Food Inspector, according to me, throw a great deal of light on his character. Here is a witness who, in order to get the accused, convicted, did not hesitate to examine a bogus person under the name of Shivaji Gaikwad. It is only when the defence succeeded in locating the real Shivaji Gaikwad and examined him in their defence that the falsity of the prosecution witness was entirely proved. The Food Inspector, therefore, tried to play a fraud on the Court by examining somebody who was not the real person. It is only when the defence succeeded in locating the real Shivaji Gaikwad and examined him in their defence that the falsity of the prosecution witness was entirely proved. The Food Inspector, therefore, tried to play a fraud on the Court by examining somebody who was not the real person. Had not the defence been alert on this point, perhaps, the Food Inspector may have succeeded in getting a conviction against the accused on the testimony of a false witness. This trait of the Food Inspector casts a great deal of doubt about his integrity. A person who was not afraid to take liberty with the Court will certainly be a person who would not hesitate to make even a false charge against an innocent person. It must be remembered here that Case No. 268/S was against the present accused and, therefore, the above incident of bogus panch assumes importance. This fact, according to me, shows that the Food Inspector is after the blood of the accused and that is why he has gone to the length of getting a witness perjured to supplement his cause." In the memorandum of appeal filed in this Court the State has-and perhaps rightly-not chosen to challenge these statements. All that is said in ground (vi) is that the finding of the lower Court that the Food Inspector was not reliable witness".....is contrary to the justice in law" whatever that phrase means. Even otherwise and even after hearing the learned Advocates and examining the record, it is not possible for me to say that the comments (supra) of the learned Magistrate are not warranted. 5. Coming to the case itself, it revolves round the testimony of two witnesses viz., the Food Inspector and the panch. As regards the panch, his evidence virtually shatters the prosecution. He states nothing about any demand being made by the Food Inspector with the accused for the supply of samples. On the other hand, he says that the Inspector himself took samples from the tins directly into bottles. He is utterly silent about the quantity taken or its division into parts or even about any payment being made by the Food Inspector. He also speaks nil about any form being served on the accused as alleged by the Food Inspector. He also at one state admits that the samples were not weighed and sealed in his presence. He is utterly silent about the quantity taken or its division into parts or even about any payment being made by the Food Inspector. He also speaks nil about any form being served on the accused as alleged by the Food Inspector. He also at one state admits that the samples were not weighed and sealed in his presence. Indeed, after considering this disastrous evidence, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted before the Magistrate that the evidence of the panch (though not got declared hostile by the prosecution) ".....should be totally disregarded". The Magistrate has rightly rejected this submission holding that for ought one knows, the panch may be telling the truth. The prosecution failed to examine the second panch or the other Food Inspector one Gaikwad who also was present at the visit in question. 6. Coming next to the evidence of the Food Inspector M.N. Torse, the less said the better. This is not at all a case where conviction can rest on his sole testimony-vitiated as it is by his own tattered image and integrity. Within three days of their acquittal (in a prosecution at the hands of this very Inspector), the accused are once again marched off to face this second prosecution (on the basis of samples taken more than seventeen months earlier) in this Inspectors ruthless quest for ignoble success. I find him to be a thoroughly unreliable Inspector. Record further shows that he had, in a parallel case against these very accused, gone to the extent of examining as panch an altogether bogus person who had, as subsequently found established, not been a panch at all and who had in fact impersonated as a panch. An Inspector who has no compunction and least hesitation in bringing a bogus person before a Court of law and who dares to have him impresonate, destroys the very solemnity and sanctity of judicial proceedings. Such conduct is tantamount to throwing dust in the eyes of the Court. It is a reprehensible stratagem calling for an inquiry at the hands of the appropriate authorities. There are, even on merits, infirmities and lacunae in the evidence of this Inspector but, in the entire context, I feel it fruitless and futile and discuss the same. Such conduct is tantamount to throwing dust in the eyes of the Court. It is a reprehensible stratagem calling for an inquiry at the hands of the appropriate authorities. There are, even on merits, infirmities and lacunae in the evidence of this Inspector but, in the entire context, I feel it fruitless and futile and discuss the same. I am convinced that no reliance can be plea on this Inspector whose conduct has cast a slur and a stigma on judicial proceedings and has fouled the instant prosecution in the process rendering it extremely doubtful and highly suspect. 7. The prosecution, almost anaemic ab initio, has miserably failed to establish the charge against the accused. Acquittal by the learned trial Magistrate is not only fully justified but should also serve as an example to all concerned that it will not pay to play fast and loose with courts of law and administration of justice. 8. This appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds will stand cancelled. 9. A copy of this judgment should be sent to the Department concerned expeditiously. -----