JUDGMENT - P.S. SHAH, J.:---The petitioner was tried by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad, on deputation at Jalna, for an offence under section 16(1) (b) and (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by his judgment and order dated August 25, 1978. The Magistrate found him guilty and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. His appeal to the Sessions Court was also dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, on February 27, 1979. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this Revision Application challenging his conviction. 2. The prosecution case against the petitioner may be stated thus : 3. The complainant (P.W. 1) was at the material time working as a Food Inspector at Aurangabad District. Another witness in this case, Kundlik Shelar (P.W. 4) was also then working as a Food Inspector at Aurangabad District. The petitioner is the partner of the firm known as Rathi Dal Industries at Jalna. On October 22, 1975, the complainant along with Shelar (P.W. 4) and another witness, Swarupchand Jain, came to Central Octroi Naka situated in Moudha area at Jalna. The complainant then saw a lorry standing at the naka. Its registration No. was MHB-5361. He enquired with the driver of the lorry about the gunny bags containing articles in the said lorry. On enquiry he came to know that the petitioner is the owner of these gunny bags. He demanded a sample of the articles in the said gunny bags from the driver. The driver told him to approach the petitioner as he was the owner of the articles. After verifying the records shown by the driver, the complainant called the petitioner from his shop, M/s. Kundanmal Omprakash to the Octroi Naka. The petitioner told the complainant that the contents of the 45 gunny bags in the lorry which belonged to him were cattle feed and the same was sent by M/s. Pashu Anand Sons of Bombay. In support of this, the petitioner showed a letter written by the said Bombay firm to the firm of the petitioner and then prepared a true copy of the said letter and handed over the same to the complainant. The complainant then demanded the sample from the gunny bags. In support of this, the petitioner showed a letter written by the said Bombay firm to the firm of the petitioner and then prepared a true copy of the said letter and handed over the same to the complainant. The complainant then demanded the sample from the gunny bags. The petitioner, however, instead of complying with the direction of the complainant gave, signal to the driver to start the lorry and went away. The petitioner told the complainant that the lorry was going to the premises of Rathi Dal Industries where he could get the sample. The complainant and his companions then went to the premises of Rathi Dal Industries situated in the Industrial area. However, they could not find the lorry there. While they were returning on their motor cycles, they saw the lorry at Mantha Road. The lorry was chased. The driver stopped the vehicle near Mission Hospital. The complainant again called the petitioner from his shop and demanded the sample. Before the petitioner had come towards the lorry the driver had disclosed to the complainant that he moved the truck away from the Octroi Naka and took it to the premises of Rathi Dal Industries at the instance of the petitioner. When he went there he was again asked to take away the truck and park it at some odd place. The complainant and his companions then physically inspected the bags of Mung Dal. On inspection thereof the complainant was satisfied that the Mung Dal was not cattle feed as suggested by the petitioner on the basis of the letter from M/s. Pashu Anand Sons, Bombay, who had consigned the goods to the petitioner. The petitioner instead of complying with the direction of the Food Inspector refused to give samples. He even snatched away the copy of the letter from M/s. Pashu Anand Sons which was already given to the complainant by the petitioner and tore into pieces. The petitioner even threatened the witness for giving signature on the panchanama and, thereafter, the petitioner left the spot. The complainant then collected the torn pieces of the letter and assembled them in proper order by affixing them on a paper in the presence of the witness. The petitioner even threatened the witness for giving signature on the panchanama and, thereafter, the petitioner left the spot. The complainant then collected the torn pieces of the letter and assembled them in proper order by affixing them on a paper in the presence of the witness. On further investigation the Food Inspector got the information that 81 bags of Mung Dal along with a letter dated October 19,1975, from the petitioner were sent by M/s. Rathi Dal Industries to Bombay, but on the next day itself 45 bags out of the said 81 bags Mung Dal were returned by the same truck No. MHB-5361 as the Bombay party did not approve of the quality. The complainant collected the information which showed that the Mung Dal in question was manufactured by M/s. Rathi Dal Industries. The complainant obtained the necessary sanction under section 20 of the Act for the prosecution of the accused for offence under section 16(1)(b) and (c) if the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and thereafter filed the complainant on November 10, 1975. 4. At the trial, besides the two Food Inspectors viz., the complainant (P.W. 1) and Shelar (P.W. 4), two more witnesses were examined. Swarupchand (P.W. 2) who had accompanied the Food Inspector and had also signed the panchanama as a witness did not support the prosecution. He was declared hostile and cross-examined. Another witness (P.W. 3), examined by the prosecution was a formal witness and his evidence has no bearing on the material aspects of this case. The defence of the accused was of total denial. 5. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected the defence case that the Mung Dal in question was not intended for sale. He held that the circumstances showed that the bags were in transit and pertained to dealings in food grains which conclusively established that the bags in question were for the purpose of sale. As far as the main question viz. whether the prosecution had established its case that the accused had prevented the Food Inspector from taking the sample or from exercising the powers conferred on him under the Act is concerned, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge believed the evidence of the complainant. According to the learned Addl. Session Judge, the chain of the circumstances established by the prosecution lead to the only conclusion that the complainant was prevented by the accused from taking the sample. Sessions Judge believed the evidence of the complainant. According to the learned Addl. Session Judge, the chain of the circumstances established by the prosecution lead to the only conclusion that the complainant was prevented by the accused from taking the sample. The circumstances relied on by him were (i) the petitioner who had gone to the naka had told the complainant that he was not entitled to take the sample because it was cattle feed which according to the learned Judge was a verbal prevention; (ii) the petitioner signalled the truck driver to leave the spot and misrepresented to the complainant that the truck had proceeded to Rathi Dal Mill premises where the sample could be taken; (iii) the complainant accordingly went to the mill premises found that the truck was not there at all and that the complainant had cheated him; (iv) it was only after the complainant chased the truck on a motor-cycle that he found it parked near the Mission Hospital; (v) the petitioner was again called there, but he has not only refused to give the sample, but also snatched away the true copy of the letter from the complainant and tore it into pieces. After referring to these circumstances the learned Addl. Sessions Judge observed : "This type of gesture on the part of the accused was sufficient to have effect on the mind of the Inspector to believe that he was prevented by the accused from taking the sample. In my view, this is a case in which the accused not only refused to give samples but by his words, deed and conduct has effectually prevented the Food Inspector from taking the samples. Not only that he even prevented him from exercising his powers and duties as such Inspector to prepare a panchanama etc. of the happening." 6. It is clear from the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that he has simply relied on the testimony of the complainant without even considering the evidence of the other Food Inspector (P.W. 4) who has given a totally contradictory version of the incident. There is no reference to the evidence of Shelar (P.W. 4) nor has his evidence been appreciated. This raise a serious infirmity in the approach and appreciation by the learned judge which, in my view, has resulted in totally wrong conclusions. There is no reference to the evidence of Shelar (P.W. 4) nor has his evidence been appreciated. This raise a serious infirmity in the approach and appreciation by the learned judge which, in my view, has resulted in totally wrong conclusions. While according to the evidence of the complainant, the petitioner signalled the driver of the truck to take away the truck from the naka; Shelar (P.W. 4) has said in his evidence that the truck was not standing at the naka when he came with the petitioner. According to him, he saw the truck passing while he was at a distance of one furlong from the naka. He also admitted that the complainant had no talk with the accused at the naka and the entire talk regarding the taking of the sample took place at Mondah i.e. the shop belonging to the petitioner. This evidence of the Food Inspector, Shelar, is fully destructive of the case made out by the complainant regarding the signalling of the petitioner to the driver to move away the truck and the complainants further alleged talk with the petitioner that he had asked the driver to take away the truck to the mill premises. The evidence of Shelar (P.W. 4) who is also a Food Inspector raises a serious doubt about the veracity of the case set out by the complainant in his evidence. Having regard to the evidence of the Food Inspector, Shelar, one would naturally search for strong corroboration to the testimony of the complainant regarding the manner in which the entire incident took place. The panch, Swarupchand, has turned hostile and his evidence is of no assistance to the prosecution. The driver of the truck has not been examined. The incident took place during day time on the public road. It should have been possible for the Food Inspector to examine other independent witnessess who were naturally expected to be a present at the naka and also near the Mission Hospital where the truck is said to have been found after it was chased. It is the case of the complainant that the petitioner directed the driver, cleaner and hamals not to sign any documents written by the complainant and even threatened them. None of them has been examined to support this case. It is the case of the complainant that the petitioner directed the driver, cleaner and hamals not to sign any documents written by the complainant and even threatened them. None of them has been examined to support this case. It is the evidence of the complainant that the petitioner told him that the delivery of the goods will take place at the mill premises and he could obtain the sample there. According to the evidence of Shelar the truck had already left the naka even before the petitioner came there. There was, therefore, no question of any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. In the absence of any corroboration from independent witnesses, particularly having regard to the evidence of Shelar (P.W. 4), it would not be safe to base conviction on the sole testimony of the complainant. It is difficult to choose between two versions of the two Food Inspectors which as I have pointed out earlier are contradictory with each other. The important circumstances on which the prosecution relies viz. the signalling by the accused to the driver to move away the truck and the misrepresentation by the accused to the complainant that the truck will be at the mills premises where he can take the sample is not established. The sole evidence is of the complainant which unfortunately is not only not supported by his companion but his evidence renders the complainants story improbable. 7. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has totally over-looked these important aspects. The accused is, therefore, entitled to a benefit of doubt as it has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had prevented the Food Inspector from taking the sample or from carrying out his duties under the Act. The order of conviction and sentence must, therefore, be set aside and the accused is entitled to an acquittal. 8. The impugned order of conviction and sentence dated August 25, 1978, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad, as well as the order dated February 27, 1979, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, confirming the said order are quashed and set aside and the accused is acquitted. 9. Fine, if paid, be refunded. 10. Bail-bonds cancelled. -----