JUDGMENT Mohd. Hamid Hussain, J. - This appeal has been preferred by Ram Nawal who was tried in Sessions Trial No. 386 of 1976 and the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh by his judgment and order dated 12-9-77 convicted the appellant under section 7(1) read with section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo one year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default to further undergo 2 months' R.I. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that on 16-10-75 at about 10-55 A.M. appellant Ram Nawal was taking buffalo's milk for sale in Mohalla Azari Bagh in the city of Azamgarh. The Food Inspector Narendra Nath Singh happened to meet the appellant and after introducing himself as the Food Inspector gave notice Ext. Ka-1 on Form No. 6 to the appellant for taking sample of milk for test and analysis by the Public Analyst. In token of the receipt of notice the Food Inspector obtained the thumb impression of the appellant. Thereafter the Food Inspector purchased 750 grams of she-buffalo milk from the appellant for 75 Paise in the presence of Hari Prasad (P.W. 2) and one Muneshwar Ram. The sample of milk was put in three separate phials which were duly sealed and labelled at the spot. One phial of the sample was handed to the appellant. A composite receipt (Ext. K.a-2) for having received 75 Paise and the sample phial was also obtained from the appellant. The Food Inspector sent one of the two phials in his possession to the Public Analyst who sent the report dated 4-12-75 (Ext. Ka-3) wherein in the opinion of the Public Analyst the she-buffalo milk was found to be adulterated After receipt of the report of the Public Analyst the Food Inspector Narendra Nath Singh prepared the complaint on 27-1-76 and forwarded it to the District Health Officer for obtaining the necessary sanction for the prosecution of the appellant. After obtaining the sanction the complaint was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate who on the back of the complaint ordered on 9-2-76 : "Register. Summon the accused 4-3-76. Sd./Illegible C.J.M. 9-2-76. Accordingly, the appellant was prosecuted in the court of the learned Sessions Judge. 3. After obtaining the sanction the complaint was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate who on the back of the complaint ordered on 9-2-76 : "Register. Summon the accused 4-3-76. Sd./Illegible C.J.M. 9-2-76. Accordingly, the appellant was prosecuted in the court of the learned Sessions Judge. 3. Appellant pleaded not guilty and contended that his thumb impres-had been obtained by the Food Inspector by defrauding him by Tying that the thumb impression was being obtained for being a witness. Appellant also denied that any notice was served on him as Stated in the complaint Appellant also denied having received copy of the Public Analyst's report alleged to have been sent to him by registered post on 22-1-76 aid asserted that the Food Inspector wanted undue advantage from him' and the witnesses were falsely deposing against him. 4. In support of the prosecution case three witnesses were examined namely the Food inspector Narendra Nath Singh (P.W. 1), Hari Prasad (P.W. 2) witness of taking of sample of milk, and Radhey Shyam (P.W. 3) clerk of the Nagar Palika, Azamgarh. who on the basis of the register Maintained by him asserted that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the appellant by registered post. 5. The trial court on an assessment of the evidence found the appellant guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 6. The trial court while holding the appellant guilty brushed aside the evidence of the prosecution witness Hari Prasad (P.W. 2) who did not support the prosecution case and asserted that in his presence no sample of milk was taken, but the trial court held that since there was no explanation given by Han Prasad for having affixed his signature on the receipt therefore his assertion of not being present at the time of taking of sample of Milk cannot be accepted and that the Food Inspector had complied with the directions for getting witnesses at the time of taking the sample. A perusal of the judgment of the trial court gives an impression that the trial court paid no attention to the inaccuracy about the price paid for the milk that occurred in the statement of the Food Inspector and brushed aside this discrepancy by observing that it was because of lapse of almost 2 years from the incident that the Food Inspector might have forgotten about the price paid by him for obtaining the sample of milk from the appellant. 7. Sri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel, has appeared on behalf of the appellant and Sri Virendra Singh, learned Assistant Government Advocate has appeared for the State. 8. Sri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel, has contended that the evidence of the Food Inspector on whose statement the trial court has relied is full of inaccuracies, that the second recovery witness Hari Prasad (P.W. 2) did not support the prosecution case, and the third witness Radhey Shyam (P.W. 3) does not prove that the report of the Public Analyst was actually sent by registered post to the appellant. In support of the above contentions learned counsel has placed the evidence of the three prosecution witnesses. 9. Narendra Nath Singh (P.W. 1) has stated that on 16-10-75 at 10-55 A.M. he had taken the sample of milk from the appellant after giving him notice for the purpose and he obtained the thumb impression of the appellant on the notice. He asserted that he paid 75 Paise for the sample of milk of 750 grams purchased from the appellant, and he obtained the thumb impression of the appellant on the receipt. He also stated that at the time of taking of sample of milk Hari Prasad (P.W. 2) and Muneshwar Ram were also present and that he obtained the signature of Hari Prasad on the receipt issued by him to the appellant. In cross-examination he stated that he prepared the complaint on 27-1-76 but incorrectly wrote down the date as 27-1-75 He also asserted that he obtained sanction on 1-2-76 from the District Health Officer for the prosecution of the appellant. He asserted that he received report of the Public Analyst on 17-1-76 and not on 7-1-76. He also asserted that on 22-1-76 he sent a copy of the report of the Public Analyst by registered port to the appellant through Receipt No. 1222. He asserted that he received report of the Public Analyst on 17-1-76 and not on 7-1-76. He also asserted that on 22-1-76 he sent a copy of the report of the Public Analyst by registered port to the appellant through Receipt No. 1222. He admitted that in the sample of milk of 750 grams taken by him from the appellant he only mixed 15 drops of formalin as against 20 drops of formalin which were required for preservation of the sample of milk. He admitted that Hari Prasad witness was of the same locality where the sample of milk was taken. He denied that witness Hari Prasad was not present at the time of taking of sample of milk. He denied that he obtained thumb impression of the appellant by fraud. He admitted that the first time the thumb impression of the right hand of the appellant was obtained and later it was scored out and then the thumb impression of the left hand was taken. He admitted that he only paid 75 Paise for the sample of milk taken by him and not Rs. 1.50, whereas in the complaint Ext. Ka-5 he had mentioned having paid Rs. 1.50. After perusal, the statement of the Food Inspector which contains discrepancies is not such on which implicit reliance can be placed and it requires further corroboration from another witness. 10. The second witness Hari Prasad (P.W. 2) has not supported the statement of the Food Inspector with regard to the service of notice and taking of sample of milk from the appellant. Hari Prasad has stated in examination-in-chief that no sample of milk was taken in his presence by the Food Inspect tor Narendra Nath Singh. He admitted that the signature on Ext. Ka-2 is his, but he stated that he could not say when and where he had affixed that signature. Hari Prasad was declared hostile and in cross-examination by the prosecution he asserted that he did not know appellant Ram Nawal and he did not know whose signature was on the notice. He denied that he was not supporting the prosecution case on account of presence of the appellant. Hari Prasad was declared hostile and in cross-examination by the prosecution he asserted that he did not know appellant Ram Nawal and he did not know whose signature was on the notice. He denied that he was not supporting the prosecution case on account of presence of the appellant. The trial court has observed that this witness Hari Prasad was suppressing the true facts against and the trial court held that the signature of Hari Prasad was correctly obtained on the notice by the Food Inspector at the time of taking of sample of milk. A perusal of the statement of Hari Prasad does not give an impression that he is siding with the accused. According to the Food Inspector, besides Hari Prasad there was another recovery witness, namely, Muneshwar Ram. It was open to the prosecution to produce Muneshwar Ram to corroborate the version of the Food Inspector Narendra Nath Singh. 11. The third witness Radhey Shyam (P.W. 3) has stated that he was clerk in the Nagar Palika, Azamgarh. In cross-examination this witness has stated that he was maintaining a register in which on 22-1-76 there is an entry of postal receipt No. 1222. He admitted that the postal receipt Ext. Ka-7 which he was producing in court as No. 1222 did not bear the number 1222 but only bore No. 22. Sri Virendra Singh, learned Assistant Government Advocate, has contended that the numericals 12' before'22'have been obliterated by the gun. On a close examination of the serial number I am unable to hold that Postal Receipt Ext. Ka-7 dated 22-1-76 bears No. 1222. Further more, in this receipt the address of the addressee Ram Nawal is not mentioned, to conclusively prove that this Postal receipt pertains to the copy of the Public Analyst's report sent by registered post to the appellant. 12. Shri Virendra Singh, learned Assistant Government Advocate, has contended that the evidence of Hari Prasad (P.W. 2) who was declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case may be brushed aside and the statement of the Food Inspector Narendra Nath Singh (P.W. 1) is alone sufficient for upholding the conviction of the appellant. Learned counsel contended that the rules requiring the Food Inspector to have a witness at the time of taking sample does not mean that unless the witness corroborates the version of the Food Inspector the prosecution case cannot be accepted. Learned counsel contended that the rules requiring the Food Inspector to have a witness at the time of taking sample does not mean that unless the witness corroborates the version of the Food Inspector the prosecution case cannot be accepted. In the circumstances of the instant case this contention of the learned State Counsel cannot be accepted for the reason that the statement of the Food Inspector Narendra Nath Singh (P.W. 1) by itself is not such on which implicit reliance can be placed without corroboration from another witness. The inaccuracies and the discrepancies in the statement of Narendra Nath Singh (P.W. 1) have already been pointed out in the earlier part of the judgment for holding that the statement of Narendra Nath Singh without corroboration cannot be accepted. The fact should also not be lost sight of that the appellant is an illiterate person and had affixed his thumb impression on the notice , alleged to have been served on him by the Food Inspector while taking the sample of milk for test and analysis. Appellant Ram Nawal when examined in the trial court has given his occupation as cultivation. There is nothing in the evidence on the record to show that he is carrying on business as a milk vendor. In these circumstances, the case against the appellant cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is, there- y fore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. 13. The result is that this appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 7(1), read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of one year's R.I. and a line of Rs. 1000/- are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried.