JUDGMENT S. Malik, J. - This is an appeal by the State against the judgment dated 26-7-1976 of the Munsif-Magistrate I Class, Saharanpur acquitting the accused-respondent of an offence punishable under section 16 read with section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. According to the prosecution, sample of buffalo milk was taken from the accused by the Food Inspector on 12th of June, 1974 near village Tauli in the district of Saharanpur for analysis while the accused was offering the sample for sale. The sample was taken after due notice and a receipt was also given in proof of the payment of price for the sample. It is said that it was taken according to law and the portion sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated as it was deficient both in fat contents and in non-fatty solids. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty and denied the taking of the sample by the Food Inspector. According to him he has been falsely implicated at the instance of the Chairman of the Town Area. 4. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused because of inordinate delay in prosecuting the accused As has been pointed out, the sample was taken on the 12th of June, 1974. The report of the Public Analyst is dated 18th of July, 1974. The complaint against the accused was filed before the lower court on the 31st of May, 1975. The learned Magistrate was of the view that because of the inordinate delay the accused was deprived of the valuable right he could exercise under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as the sample must by then have become unlit for analysis. The learned Magistrate obviously was wrong. There is nothing to show that the accused tried to avail of the right under section 13(2) of the Act If he had applied for sending the portion of the sample in his possession to the Director, as required in section 13 of the Act, it was the duty of the lower court to have sent it and if the Director had reported that the sample had become unfit for analysis, it could be said that the valuable right available to the accused under section 13(2) of the Act was lost and not otherwise. 5. 5. There is, however, another point involved in this case due to which the appeal must fail. A perusal of the statement made by the Food Inspector will show that he nowhere stated that he tried to call other witnesses and that they refused to be witnesses and, therefore, he had no option but to have Sadhu Ram alone as a witness of taking of the sample. A look at the notice and the receipt will show that Sadhu Ram is the only person, who signed as a witness. Sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the Act lays down that sample should be taken in the presence of one or more persons and their signature or signatures should be obtained. It has been held more than once by this Court that one witness may be sufficient, but that witness must be an independent witness unless of course the Food Inspector proves that lie could not get any independent witness and, therefore, had to take the sample in the presence of a witness, who is not an independent witness. As has been mentioned, in this case, the Food Inspector has not proved that he tried to procure an independent witness or that he failed in his efforts because no independent person was prepared to be a witness. The only witness present at the time of the taking of the sample by the Food Inspector was Sadhu Ram. The Food Inspector admitted that Sadhu Ram was an Vaccinator and belonged to the same department in Town Area Nakur to which the Food Inspector belonged. Moreover, Sadhu Ram was a chance witness. He obviously could be under the influence of the Food Inspector as they belonged to the same department and it could not be said that he was an independent witness. Sadhu Ram no doubt tried to fill in the lacuna by saying that independent persons were called but they refused to be witnesses. This cannot be believed. Sadhu Ram stated that his signature was taken on the wrapper of the sample phial also. There was no such signature. 6. Under the circumstances, after considering the entire evidence on the record I see no force in this appeal and dismiss it.