JUDGMENT B.N. Katju, J. - Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra has filed this appeal against the judgment of a Magistrate 1st class Agra dated 20-12-1972 acquitting Lahrey respondent under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in Criminal Case No. 30 of 1972. 2. The case of the appellant (Complainant) is that V.N. Singh, Food Inspector Nagar Mahapalika, Agra (PW 1) found the respondent selling milk from a vessel (Tanki) containing about 30 litres of milk on 17-2- 1972 at about 7.30 A.M. near the Collect-orate, Agra. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the respondent and offered 80 paise to him for selling 660 millilitre milk to him for analysis by the Public Analyst but the respondent did not sell milk to him and instead threw the entire milk from the vessel (Tanki) on the ground as a result of which no milk could be purchased by the Food Inspector. The respondent thus prevented the Food Inspector from taking milk for analysis which is punishable under section 16(l)(b)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with section 7 of the Act. 3. Four eye witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant, namely, V.N. Singh, Food Inspector (PW 1) Ram Singh, Peon of the Nagar Mahapalika (PW 2), Rajan Singh, Food Beldar Nagar Mahapalika (PW 4) and Bhagwan Singh (PW 5). The respondent pleaded not guilty and stated that he had sold entire milk and his vessel (Tanki) was empty. The Food Inspector demanded bribe (Mahinadari) from him and when he refused to give it the Food Inspector slapped him and implicated him falsely. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to establish the guilt of the respondent and acquitted him as mentioned earlier. 4. All the four eye witnesses produced by the complainant, namely, V.N. Singh, Food Inspector (PW 1), Ram Singh, Peon (PW 2), Rajan Singh, Food Beldar (PW 4) and Bhagwan Singh (PW 5) supported the case of the complainant mentioned earlier. The trial Court has, however, rightly pointed out that there are material discrepancies in their statements. 4. All the four eye witnesses produced by the complainant, namely, V.N. Singh, Food Inspector (PW 1), Ram Singh, Peon (PW 2), Rajan Singh, Food Beldar (PW 4) and Bhagwan Singh (PW 5) supported the case of the complainant mentioned earlier. The trial Court has, however, rightly pointed out that there are material discrepancies in their statements. V.N. Singh, Food Inspector (PW 1) has not stated anything regarding the notice under Rule 12 whereas Ram Singh (PW 2) stated that the respondent did not put his thumb impression on the notice and Bhagwan Singh (PW 5) stated that the Food Inspector (PW I) did not give any notice or paper to the respondent. V.N. Singh, Food inspector (PW 1) stated that the respondent had sold milk to a boy whereas Bhagwan Singh (PW 5) stated that the respondent sold milk to a Chaiwala, V.N. Singh, Food Inspector (PW 1) stated he offered 80 paise to the respondent as price of the sample of the milk whereas Bhagwan Singh (PW 5) stated that the Food Inspector (PW 1) gave no price of milk to the respondent. The trial Court has also rightly held that it is difficult to believe that the respondent could have thrown the entire 30 litres of milk from his vessel (Tanki) by lifting the back wheel of his cycle to which the vessel (Tanki) was tied when the witnesses were only ten paces from him and had tried to prevent him from doing so as admitted by Bhagwan Singh (PW 5). In these circumstances, the evidence of the four eye witnesses produced by the complainant was rightly not relied upon by the trial Court and the acquittal of the respondent under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was fully justified. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.