JUDGMENT B.N. Katju, J. - The Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra has filed this appeal against the judgment of Magistrate 1st Class Nagar Mahapalika Agra dated 30-6-1973 passed in criminal case No. 74 of 1972 acquitting Virendra Prasad Mittal respondent under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The case of the complainant (appellant) is that Sri Kunwar Singh (PW 1) was the Food Inspector of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra. On 24-12-1971 at about 9 A.M. he reached Baluganj along with his staff. He found the respondent selling 'Pisi Hui Lal Mitch'. He purchased 450 Gms. of the Mirch for Rs. 2.10 P. He filled the Mirch in three phials. The phial sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant to connect the respondent with the crime, namely, Sri Kunwar Singh (PW 1), the Food Inspector, Ram Singh (PW 2), the Food Beldar and Mahesh Chandra (PW 3), the licence clerk of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra. 3. The respondent pleaded not guilty and stated that he does not sell mirch or any other article of food but only does (he work of grinding Mirch and Masala and medicines etc. Four witnesses were examined in defence, namely, Dau Dayal (DW 1), Bimal Kapoor (DW 2), Prahlad (DW 3), and Virendra Prasad Mittal (DW 4). 4. The trial court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the Mirch which was taken from the shop of the respondent was not for sale and acquitted the respondent as mentioned earlier. 5. The report of Sri Kunwar Singh (PW 1) the Food Inspector, clearly mentions that the sign-board in front of the shop of the respondent contained the words "Swasthya Vibhag Dwara Manyta Prapt Hamare Yahan Bhojan Ke Proyeg Men Ane Wale Masala Chura Adi Swachh Ewam Swasthya Purn is Men Adhunik Dhang So Piess Jate Hain" which clearly indicate that Mirch or any other Article of food were not sold at his shop but only grinding was done. Mahesh Chandra (PW 3), the licence clerk of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, also deposed that the respondent had no licence for selling articles of food. The defence of the respondent that only grinding of medicines and Masala etc. Mahesh Chandra (PW 3), the licence clerk of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, also deposed that the respondent had no licence for selling articles of food. The defence of the respondent that only grinding of medicines and Masala etc. was done at his shop is supported by the evidence of Dau Dayal (DW 1), Bimal Kapoor (DW 2) and Prahlad (DW 3). It was stated by Dau Dayal (DW 1) that the respondent did the work of grinding medicines and that he did not sell anything in his shop. Bimal Kapoor (DW 2) deposed that the respondent had a grinding machine and did the work of grinding Masalas. In December 1971 at about 9 A.M. one Inspector came to bis shop and demanded a sample of Mirch. The respondent told him that he did not sell Mirch, but the Inspector took a sample of Mirch. Prahlad (DW 3) deposed that about 1 years earlier he gave 3 kgs. of seed of Mirch to the respondent for grinding. When he went to the shop of the respondent to take the Mirch the respondent told him that a sample of Mirch had been taken by the Inspector. The respondent appealed as DW 4 and deposed that he did the business of grinding Masala, medicines, Dhania, Mirch, etc, but did not sell those articles. On 24-12-971 at about 9 A.M. the Food Inspector came to his shop and took a sample of Mirch which belonged to Prahlad. The trial court has rightly held that the evidence of Dau Dayal, Bimal Kapoor and Prahlad (D.Ws) is reliable as they appear to be independent and nothing has been brought out in their cross-examination to shake their credit. The evidence of these three defence witnesses fully supports the defence of the respondent that he did not sell Mirch or any other articles of food. It may be mentioned that the statements of Sri Kunwar Singh (PW 1), the Food Inspector and Ram Singh (PW 2), the Food Beldar that the respondent had sold Mirch to a boy aged about 13 years before the sample of Mirch was taken by the Food Inspector has been rightly rejected by the trial court as the said boy has not been examined by the complainant and there is material discrepancy in the statement of both these witnesses regarding the place where the boy went after purchasing the Mirch. Sri Kunwar Singh (PW 1) deposed that he entered a nearby house whereas Ram Singh (PW 2) deposed that he went to a house which was at a considerable distance from the shop of the respondent. 6. The result, therefore, is that it has not been established that the sample of Mirch taken from the shop of the respondent by Sri Kunwar Singh (PW i) was for sale. The acquittal of the respondent under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the trial court was thus fully justified. 7. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.