JUDGMENT Mohd. Hamid Hussain, J. - This appeal has been filed by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur against the judgment and order dated 1541975 of the Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 1593 of 1972 acquitting the two respondents Sundar Lal and Mangat Ram alias Mangatu Ram under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The case of the prosecution as contained in the complaint was that the Food Inspector Sri S. B. Tiwari on 23121971 at 13 a. m. inspected the premises No. 57/115, in Mohalla Kahu Kothi, within police circle Collectorganj, in the city of Kanpur and found respondent SundarLal selling adulterated Arhar kiDal of which the Inspector took a sample. The sample of Arhar ki Dal was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the said Arhar ki Dal contained colouring matter. After the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst a complaint was filed against SundarLal as well as Mangat Rani alias Mangatu Ram in whose name the licence for doing business in grocery was issued. 3. Both the respondents Mangatu Ram assented that he was neither present at the shop nor any sample of Dal was taken from his shop nor any money was paid therefor. He denied that SundarLal was his servant who was sitting at the shop at the time of inspection by the Food Inspector who took the sample of Arhar which was subsequently found to be adulterated. Respondent Sundar Lal also denied the charge against him. One Mahavir Prasad was examined as a defence witness. 4. The Food Inspector Sri S B. Tiwari examined himself in Court in support of the allegations contained in the complaint. 5. The trial Court on assessment of the evidence acquitted the respondents. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of acquittal this appeal has been preferred. 6. Sri R. C. Shukla, learned counsel, has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Both the learned counsel have been heard. 7. The learned Magistrate in the impugned judgment has not recorded a finding on the assessment of the evidence of the record but has acquitted the respondents by citing two decisions, one of this Court reported in 1960 A. L. J. R. page 52and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases Journal published from Delhi in February 1974 at pages 72 to 86. Sri R. C. Shukla, learned counsel, has contended that the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind for recording a finding on the evidence on the record and took the easy course of acquitting the respondents by citing the two rulings in the cases which does not apply to the facts of the instant case. The contention of the learned counsel in this regard is correct. The learned Magistrate ought to have recorded a finding for or against after assessing the evidence and not to have taken easy recourse to the rulings cited by him for acquitting the respondents. However, with the assistance of the learned counsel the evidence of the Food Inspector as well as the settlement of the defence witness Mahavir Prasad have been perused. In this case respondent Sundar Lal besides making his statement has also appeared as a defence witness and stated on oath denying the allegations contained in the complaint. 8. Sri S. B. Tiwari, Food Inspector has stated that in house No. 57/117 there are a number of shops and he could not say who were the owners of those shops. He also admitted that the shops are let out by the shop owners to others. He stated that he had nominated Mangatu Ram in this c se on being told by Sundar Lal and at the time of his taking the sample Mangatu Ram was not present at the shop He stated that at the time of inspection he did not verify from papers the ownership of the shop. Respondent Mangatu Ram has stated that he was not present at the shop when the alleged inspection by the Food Inspector took place. He has also stated that respondent Sundar Lal was not his servant. Respondent Sundar Lal appeared in the witnessbox as a defence witness and he stated that he used to sit in front of the shop of Mangatu Ram on the footpath and used to sell caps, angochhas and banians. He further stated that Mangatu Ram had gone away from the shop requesting him to look after it and during the absence of Mangatu Ram the Food Inspector cauie and inspected the shop and he (Sundar Lai) told the Food Inspector that the inspection may be done when Mangatu Ram arrives. He further stated that Mangatu Ram had gone away from the shop requesting him to look after it and during the absence of Mangatu Ram the Food Inspector cauie and inspected the shop and he (Sundar Lai) told the Food Inspector that the inspection may be done when Mangatu Ram arrives. In view of this statement of SunderLal and the admission of the Food Inspector that at the time of inspection Mangatu Ram was not present, the taking of sample of ArharKi Dal by the Food Inspector, which was subsequently found to be adulterated, connot be said to have been done in accordance with law. The recovery of adulterated Dal in the circumstances as appear from the statement of the Food Inspector and the statements of the respondents Mangatu Ram and Sundar Lal, cannot be taken to be sufficient evidence for holding any one of the respondents guilty. Therefore, the acquittal of the respondents recorded by the trial Court does not call for interference. 9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.