JUDGMENT B.N. Katju, J. - The Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Maha-palika, Agra has filed this appeal against the acquittal of Banshi Lal respondent under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Magistrate 1st Class, Agra by his judgment dated 11-7-1974 passed in criminal case No 2122 of 1973. 2. The case of the complainant (appellant) is that on 19-3-1972 at about 2 P.M. Kunwar Singh (P.W. 1), the Food Inspector of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra reached Ghati Namu Bhanja with his staff. He purchased 450 gms. of curry powder from the shop of the respondent for Re. 1.25. The curry powder was divided into three phials. One of the phials was sent to the Public Analyst who found it to be adulterated as it contained common salt and crude fibre in excess of the prescribed limits. Two witnesses were examined by the complainant to connect the respondent with the crime, namely, Sri Kunwar Singh (P.W. 1), the Food Beldar. The respondent pleaded not guilty and stated that he only does the work of grinding Masalas and neither Masalas nor any other article of food is sold at his shop. Six witnesses were examined in defence, namely, Abdul Hakim (D.W. 1), Sewak Ram (D.W. 2), Haji Jamiluddin (D W. 3), Naresh Narain Srivastava (D.W. 4), Raghubir Singh (D.W. 5) and Banshi Lal respondent (D.W. 6). 3. 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. The main questions to be determined in the case were whether the respondent was exhibiting for sale or selling the curry powder (Masala), the sample of which was taken by Sri Kunwar Singh the Food Inspector, and whether the said curry powder was adulterated. It was stated by Sri Kunwar Singh (P.W. 1), the Food Inspector, that a boy aged about 14 years had purchased curry powder (Masala) from the shop of the respondent before he purchased the sample of curry powder, but this cannot be accepted as the said boy has not been examined and it is difficult to believe the statement of Sri Kunwar Singh (P.W. 1) that he had asked his name and address but he did not tell him. 4. 4. The defence of the respondent that he was doing the business of grinding Masalas and not selling Masalas or any other article of food is supported by the evidence of the defence witnesses examined by him. Abdul Hakim (D.W. 1) deposed that the grinding mill of the respondent was adjacent to his shop. The respondent used to grind articles of his customers and did not sell any articles. Sewak Ram (D.W 2) stated that he got the Masala required for the marriage of his daughter and sister, which were celebrated on 31-3-1972 and 1-4-1972, grinned from the shop of the respondent. At the time of delivery of the Masala on 30-3-1972 he was told by the respondent that 450 gms. of Masala had been taken by the Food Inspector. Haji Jamiluddin (D.W. 3) deposed that he knew the respondent who used to do the work of grinding Masalas in his grinding mill, Sri Naresh Srivastava (D.W. 4) deposed that he was the Food Inspector of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra in 1966. The respondent used to grind Masalas at that time and on 21-1-1966 he took a sample of Pisi Haldi from the grinding mill of the respondent. Raghubir Singh (P.W. 6) was the Food Clerk of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra in. 1966. He deposed that the sample Register of 1966 shows that oo 21-1-1966 the sample of Haldi taken from the shop of the respondent was found to be genune. The respondent, who appeared as D.W. 6, deposed that he was doing the work of grinding masalas for the last 12 years. He had no licence for selling Masalas. The trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the evidence of the defence witnesses appears to be reliable as nothing was brought out in their cross-examination to shake their credit. In these circumstances the trial court rightly held that the Masala (curry powder) taken from the shop of the respondent by Sri Kunwar Singh, Food Inspector on 29-3-1972 was neither being sold nor exhibited for sale. In these circumstances the trial court rightly held that the Masala (curry powder) taken from the shop of the respondent by Sri Kunwar Singh, Food Inspector on 29-3-1972 was neither being sold nor exhibited for sale. It was also rightly held by the trial Court that it has not been established from the evidence on record that the sample purchased by Kunwar Singh, Food Inspector on 29-3-1972 was curry powder as it was stated by Sri Kunwar Singh and also by Ram Singh that Garam Masala was purchased from the shop of the respondent, which has not been shown by any evidence produced by the complainant to be the same as curry powder. The sample of Garam Masala taken from the shop of the respondent cannot, therefore, be held to be adulterated as no standards of purity has been prescribed for Garam Masala by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The result, therefore, is that the acquittal of the respondent under Section 7/15 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the trial court was fully justified. 5. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.