Short Note : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th December 1972, passed by the Municipal Magistrate, First Class, Indore, in criminal case No.5592 of 1968, acquitting the respondent of offence under section 16 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, as per prosecution case, are that on 2-1-1968, at about 7 a.m., the Food Inspector Laxmansingh Chauhan P.W.1 stopped the respondent, a milk-vender, who was going on a cycle carrying milk for sale in containers. The Food Inspector wanted to take the sample of milk for purposes of analysis but the respondent threw away the entire milk of the containers, and thus, did not allow him to collect the sample of milk. He prepared the Panchnama Ex. P1 and on these facts the respondent was prosecuted, which on trial, resulted in his acquittal. The case of the respondent at the trial was of denial Held: The learned trial Court after considering the evidence of the Food Inspector Laxmansingh Chauhan P.W. 1, Ramlal P.W. 2, who is said to be a Panch witness and Ratanlal P.W. 4, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent. It appears from the statement of Food Inspector Laxmansingh Chauhan P.W. 1 that it was for the first time when he had intercepted the respondent and wanted to purchase the sample of milk. His evidence, however, is not fully supported by Ramlal P.W. 2 and Ratanlal P.W. 4. Ramlal in one breath has deposed that a sample of milk was actually taken from the respondent, whereas in another breath, he says that no sample was taken. P.W. 4 Ratanlal in his statement has deposed that he signed the Pachnama Ex. P.1 as Ghanshyam, when in fact, his name is Ratanlal. In has cross-examination he has clearly admitted that he very well knew when he signed as Ghanshyam, that he was committing an offence by impersonating another person. All this evidence has been properly considered by the learned trial Court. In face of this evidence, the statement of the Food Inspector Laxmansingh Chauhan P.W.1, becomes some what doubtful. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that it was the respondent, who threw away the entire milk of the containers. 3. All this evidence has been properly considered by the learned trial Court. In face of this evidence, the statement of the Food Inspector Laxmansingh Chauhan P.W.1, becomes some what doubtful. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that it was the respondent, who threw away the entire milk of the containers. 3. In face of this evidence the view taken and the conclusion reached, cannot be said to be unreasonable, no question of law is apparently involved in this case. The entire decision depends on consideration and appreciation of evidence. For the latches of the prosecution the benefit goes to the respondent. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The acquittal of the respondent in this case is maintained. Appeal dismissed.